ANNAPOLIS AND THE YELLOW BRICK ROAD
Once again, as the end of the term of a U.S. President nears, the ether of peace negotiations between Israel and its Arab neighbors re-emerges, as a cyclical tide of intangible Jelly fish. So was with the elder Bush and the Madrid conference, with Clinton and Camp David, and now the young Bush and Annapolis. The challenge of this most intractable, protracted conflict seems to simultaneously draw and repulse American statesmen who have nothing more to worry about but their legacy, because without a doubt, solving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will be seen by history as one of the greatest diplomatic achievements of our time. And yet, time and time again they fail. This is specially puzzling given the fact that, according to most polls, not only the vast majority of both Israeli and Palestinians want an end to the conflict, they actually agree on the general lines of a two state solution, very much in line with what was proposed by Clinton in 2000. This enigma can be better understood if we take a look at a couple of polls conducted jointly by the Harry S. Truman Research Institute for the Advancement of Peace at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research in Ramallah. The first poll, in December 2006, showed that 68% of Israelis and 62% of Palestinians supported an end to the armed conflict. However, a second poll from July 2007 shows that in spite of their desire to end the conflict, 89% of Israelis and 76% of Palestinians still believed that the armed confrontation will continue, and only 31% of Palestinians believed it is possible to reach an agreement with the Olmert government, and 25% of Israelis believed it would be possible to compromise with a Palestinian national unity government. In other words, even though there is general agreement on the broad parameters to end the conflict, both sides are unwilling to yield because they do not trust the other side to be a sincere partner.
And therein lies the main obstacle to this problem, that neither of the Bushes nor Clinton ever focused on: The psychological obstacles to the conflict, such as hatred, mistrust, and prejudice, are not less critical than the political issues of borders, refugees and settlements. Yet, the social and psychological dimensions have been totally overlooked. The road to a negotiating table that does not include awareness of the core social, cultural and psychological issues, will be like the yellow brick road to Oz: A trek to an illusory destination that will not solve the underlying human problems that affect the parties.
Annapolis is indeed a positive and welcome development, if nothing else because it gives all sides in the conflict a platform to communicate. However, just as in any other conflict, getting the sides together to talk without addressing the underlying human factors fueling the conflict can quickly degenerate into a shouting match. To fully reach a solution to this long and bloody conflict, we can not overlook the psychological dimension. There can only be a true end to the conflict when this distant neighbors learn to see and talk to each other as human beings who only have a desire for a better life, a better future.
Moises Salinas is a professor of cross-cultural psychology at Central Connecticut State University. His latest book is Planting Hatred, Sowing Pain: The Psychology of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict.
Add comment January 10th, 2008 Posted by Moises