Professor Gerald M. Steinberg is the Director of the Program on Conflict Management at BarIlan University in Israel. He serves on the Board of Directors of Scholars for Peace in the Middle East
Despite decades of intense peace efforts, the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians has not been resolved. Instead, well-intentioned initiatives, conferences, dialogues and agreements have all ended in disaster. The vast majority of Israelis understand this, and in response, have pressed Prime Minister Sharon to try a different approach, known as unilateral engagement. Israelis recognize that in an environment of intense hatred and violence, separation of the antagonists is the best available option.
After resisting this approach, both Sharon and the Bush Administration have accepted this logic. They understand that the environment for compromises necessary for a realistic peace agreement between Israeli and Palestinian societies will take decades and even generations to develop. Yassir Arafat has shown that he is not interested in a peace agreement, and there is no evidence of an alternative Palestinian leadership that would be capable of making a credible commitment.
In this situation, the construction of a separation barrier and removal of isolated Israeli settlements as well as checkpoints in Gaza and the West Bank will reduce terror attacks as well as the level of friction.
But for the opponents of unilateral separation, including Palestinians who aim to continue the campaign terror without the imposition of obstacles, this is a difficult pill to swallow. In presenting the case, they emphasize the humanitarian dimension, claiming that the economic consequences would be disastrous, and ignoring the fact that the terrorist war has already created a major catastrophe. In contrast, World Bank analysts and others recognize that separation will have the positive impact of ending the Palestinian “culture of dependence”. (This politically incorrect analysis has been buried to avoid undermining the PR campaign against the Israeli barrier.)
The other vociferous opponents of unilateral disengagement include diplomats, whose professional careers are based on negotiations of formal treaties, journalists and academics in the peace business. For example in an oped in the Boston Globe (“Negotiation is the road to Mideast peace, April 8 2004”) Prof. Herbert Kelman, who runs Harvard’s Middle East Seminar, warned that such “unilateral steps would have disastrous consequences”. He repeated the arguments about economic disaster, and noted that this would make Gaza ungovernable. But Kelman conveniently forgot that life in Gaza is already in a state of total chaos, due to both the responses to terrorism and corruption of the Palestinian elite.
After decades of Arab-Israeli dialogues, summer camps, and summit meetings, Kelman is unable to admit failure, and clings to the illusion of a magic formula for ending the conflict that “meets the basic needs of both parties” The religious belief in “mutually enhancing cooperation” and “reconciliation” is not only wron, but is also dangerous, as it prevents recognition of the situation on the ground. The idea that the same Palestinian and Israeli leaders responsible for the catastrophic Oslo process (encouraged by mentors such as Kelman) can be trusted to try again in the ”Geneva process” is absurd and detached from reality. Despite massive advertising, the majority of Israelis are understandably unwilling to invite more mass terror at the end of a second Oslo experience. Unlike distant analysts, Israelis do not ignore the incitement Palestinian television broadcasts, or the demonization of Israelis and of the Jewish people.
Academic and diplomatic fixation on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has also obscured the other ethno-national disputes that demonstrate the limits of traditional diplomacy. Peace talks and dialogues did not end conflict or prevent war in the former Yugoslavia, Rwanda, Northern Ireland, Armenia and Azerbijan, Sri Lanka, Indonesia, the Philippines, etc. Indeed, it is clear that outside of simulation workshops, the techniques developed by social psychologists for family therapy cannot cope with deep political and religious hatreds, irreconcilable interests and the strategy of terrorism
In sharp contrast, the models of conflict management, rather than resolution, provide a realistic foundation. A political framework that includes limiting friction and deterrence is compatible with the unilateral disengagement that Israel is preparing to implement. These measures can greatly reduce the level of violence while creating an environment for stability, and while far from the idyllic peace that diplomats and social psychologists imagine, they have the benefit of being realistic, while not contributing to increased terrorism and violence.
