Empathising with the enemy

Transformation of the Palestinian-Israeli Conflict by
overcoming psychological and structural obstacles

Stewart A. Mills*

Contents

Introduction
Gaps in the Literature
Hypotheses
Research Methodology
Research Limitations

Chapter 1 - Introduction to Conflict Resolution
1.1 The History of 'Needs-based' Conflict Resolution
John Burton and Human Needs Theory
Roger Fisher and Interest-Based Negotiation
Conflict Transformation
1.2 Methods of Needs-Based Conflict Resolution
1.3 Alternative Approaches to Needs-based Conflict Resolution
Power-based
a. Realism
b. Marxism
Rights-based
a. International Law
b. History
1.4 A Synthesis of Conflict 'Resolution' Methodologies
Conclusion

Chapter 2 - A general method for conflict resolution
A. Prerequisites for Conflict Resolution
2.1 Hope/Belief in the possibility of resolution
a. Attitudinal change
b. Political change
c. Religious change
d. Economic changes
2.2 Trust, Empathy, Cooperation, Inclusive/Nonviolent Worldviews
a. Inclusive/nonviolent worldviews
b. Empathising and cooperating with another
B. The Requisites for Conflict Resolution
The Eight Fundamental Needs
Worldviews as Determinants of Value Needs
The Origins of a Worldview
Developing More Inclusive Worldviews
C. The Prerequisites for Societal Change
2.3 Summary of a General Method for Conflict Resolution
Conclusion

Chapter 3 - Practical approaches to resolving the Palestinian-Israeli conflict
A. Requisites for Conflict Resolution
3.1 Understanding of Fundamental Needs.
Meaning and Identity need
Control need
B. Prerequisites for Conflict Resolution
3.2 Trust-building Measures and Cooperation
a. Political positions
b. Religious interpretations
c. Educational positions
d. Economic conditions
Conclusion

Chapter 4 - Conclusions
The Coming of Peace and Future Concerns Research implications
Future Research
Conclusion

Acknowledgements

---

To my brothers and sisters, the Jews who died in Dachau; and to my brothers and sisters, the Palestinians who died in Tel-Az-Zaatar, Sabra and Shatila refugees camps.

Introduction

September 29, 2002 marked two years since the beginning of the second Intifada against the Israeli army in West Bank and Gaza Strip. Since that time those killed have included 145 suicide bombers, more than 1800 Palestinians, 13 Israeli Arabs, 478 Israeli civilians, and 209 Israeli soldiers. The year 2002 also saw the beginning of the construction of a 150 kilometre wall along (and within) the West Bank/Israeli separation line, the killings at Jenin, a continuation of suicide bombings, President George W. Bush's June 24 speech calling for the removal of Chairman/President Arafat, and Labor partyís withdrawal from the Israel coalition government. The elections of 28 January 2003 returned Ariel Sharon and the Likud Party dominated coalition as the government of Israel.

September 29, 2002 also marked one year and eighteen days since the Al Qaíida attack on New York City and Washington DC. As a result, 'Palestine' has earnt herself, whether she likes it or not, her own international defender, her own 'white knight'. Osama Bin Laden, 'avowed mastermind behind the attacks' appeared to justify the attacks given the perceived 'contradictory role' of the United States in the Middle East and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This was evident from his video address released internationally on 10 October 2001.

The consequences of Al Qaíida's actions and the United States and her allies' response has profoundly changed the world and added yet another dimension to an already overburdened situation that exists for people in the Middle East.

Gaps in the Literature

Given the current state of Middle-Eastern affairs, there is a desperate need for conflict resolution scholars and practitioners to apply their skills in the facilitation of an end to the violence, which is affecting the Middle East and the wider global community.

However, literature dealing with the Palestinian-Israeli conflict betrays a lack of concise and yet comprehensive treatments of the subject. Scholarly work from a variety of disciplines demonstrates a substantial amount of research on the history of the conflict; and general theories of conflict and conflict resolution. However, there is a shortage of academic papers which provide a solid theoretical conflict resolution approach with direct practical relevance to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.

This thesis aims to address these limitations by developing a combined theoretical and practical approach for resolving the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, within a 'needs-based' conflict resolution framework. As such a general method of conflict resolution is proposed which then is used to outline steps for resolution of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.

Hypotheses

This thesis is premised on several hypotheses, which are stated below:

1. The Palestinian-Israeli conflict will continue until fundamental psychological and structural obstacles are overcome.

2. Overcoming these primary psychological obstacles requires the fulfilment of fundamental needs at the individual or micro scale.

3. The fundamental psychological needs are control, security, justice, rational stimulation, emotional stimulation, esteem, meaning and identity.

4. The prerequisites for attainment of these fundamental needs are

Hope/belief in the possibility of conflict resolution
The ability to empathise with 'the other'
The desire to develop more inclusive worldviews
(d) The action of building trust, as made evident by cooperation and
nonviolence.

5. The prerequisites for societal change require implementation within the structures of society those factors which encourage fundamental need satisfaction. These changes are required within the:

(a) social,
(b) political,
(c) religious,
(d) legal; and
(e) economic systems.

Research Methodology

The methodology adopted in this thesis follows the theory developed by conflict resolution theorists and practitioners such as Herb Kelman and John Burton. This theory remains in its embryonic stages, with much scholarly input still required in the fields of conflict resolution, social psychology, sociology, international law and international relations.

The author began informal work on this dissertation following his first trip to Israel and his time as a volunteer in the Arab-Jewish village of Neve Shalom/Wahat al-Salam, during May-July 2000. The informal research was centred in London, and continued throughout 2000 and 2001. As a result of the research the author travelled to Amsterdam, Zurich, New York, Washington DC and returned to Israel in July 2001. In this time he conducted a number of informal interviews. He began his formal research when he became a candidate for a Master of Arts in Peace and Conflict Studies, University of Sydney in March 2002.

The Middle Eastern situation remains volatile, with new developments being reported each day. This thesis is based on information available as of the 14 February 2003.

Research Limitations

This research developed a number of theoretical models, including a model on the basis for peace, at an individual and societal level and a general model on the attainment of peace, reconciliation and conflict resolution. These theoretical models proposed in chapter two whilst satisfying intuitive criteria, and backed by other scholarly work, like previously proposed models, require comprehensive empirical verification.

Secondly, given a basic theoretical assumption of need-based conflict resolution, this thesis shared some potential bias towards an over-optimistic and trusting view of humanity. To present a broader view of conflict this thesis did address the use of deceit and conflict manipulation by negotiators who chose self-centred need attainment methods. However, as a work of theory development, this thesis had to determine how a system would function if all factors were working at their optimum.

Thirdly, despite some attempts to incorporate cross-cultural results into this thesis, the sources and worldview of this thesis were heavily western-centric.

War is the decision to go for victory[rather] than resolution. Peacemaking is an attempt to resolve the sources of the conflict and restore a situation of balance, thereby eliminating the need for victory and defeat.
Jim Wallis, The Soul of Politics: A Practical and Prophetic Vision of Change, London: Fount, 1994, p. 205.


Chapter 1 - Introduction to Conflict Resolution

1.1 The History of 'Needs-based' Conflict Resolution

'Needs-based', 'cooperation-based' or 'interest-based' conflict resolution (hereafter referred to as conflict resolution) developed as a discipline following World War II. Conflict resolution as a discipline diverged from power-based conflict theory, which dominated and still dominates political science, and international relations; and converged from psychology and sociology, which was interested in group dynamics, motivation and relationships between institutional structures. Normative political theory saw conflict as a competitive struggle to be won by one side. In contrast, needs-based conflict resolution theorists developed a cooperative approach to conflict resolution, focusing on fundamental human needs, to encourage 'win-win solutions'. Nonviolence, cooperation and the belief in the essential goodness of humanity are basic principles of this approach to conflict resolution.

The foundations of this discipline have their origins in the Judeo-Christian culture that developed in Europe and North America and were particularly shaped in the twentieth century by the first and second world wars. Principal antecedents of conflict resolution included philosopher and sociologist Georg Simmel (1858-1914) and Gestalt (influential on social psychology) psychologist Kurt Lewin (1890-1947). Modern conflict resolution scholars, often quote Georg Simmel, for his contribution to the field for his book Conflict, published posthumously in English in 1955. Conflict was originally a chapter of Simmelís book Soziologie published in German in 1908. Simmel, perceived conflict (kampf) as ìdesigned to resolve divergent dualismsî, that is conflict was designed to resolve two different set of principles. He saw conflict as 'way of achieving some kind of unity,' as such Simmel took an optimistic view of conflict. However, despite this optimism, what is often not discussed in standard treatments of Simmel is his perception that this unity may be obtained 'even if it be through the annihilation of one of the conflicting parties'.

Kurt Lewinís influence on modern conflict resolution follows his influence in the development of social psychology in the United States. Kurt Lewinís contribution to conflict resolution and psychology was his emphasis on the role of social context in an individualís development of perception, values and beliefs. This was in contrast to the normative theory of psychology prior to the 1930s, which still heavily favoured biological determinism. Lewin saw conflict as a situation of 'tension' which was caused by a number of factors including the degree to which the needs of a person were in a 'state of hunger or satisfaction'. Examples of those basic needs he identified included ìsex and security'.

Morton Deutsch following in Lewinís footsteps in ideas and teaching institutions (they both taught at Massachusetts Institute of Technology) continued research on cooperation-competition systems. Deutschís contribution was highlighting the role of perception and the existence of conflict.

The American sociologist Lewis Coser followed Simmel in identifying positive aspects of conflict as expressed in The Functions of Social Conflict 1956. Coser felt the need to correct the balance of analysis, which tended to focus on the 'dysfunction' of conflict rather than the potential positive aspects of conflict. Coser provisionally defined conflict as 'a struggle over claims to scarce status, power and resources in which the aims of the opponents are to neutralise or eliminate their rivals'. Later he defined conflict as a 'clash of values and interests'.

Conflict resolution came of age in the United States in 1957 with the founding of the Journal of Conflict Resolution by Kenneth Boulding (1910-1995), Anatol Rapoport (1911- ) and Herb Kelman (1920s- ) among others. Anatol Rapoport (1911- ) a Russian born American mathematical psychologist and co-founder of the Journal of Conflict Resolution was an important contributor to this journal with his game theories, which given the mathematical approach were a highly abstract (although overly rational) way of looking at conflict.

On the other side of the Atlantic in Norway, Johan Galtung, a sociologist, founded the Journal of Peace Research in 1964. This journal was less reliant on econometric-like theory and was more readable for the less mathematically inclined. Galtung, for the purposes of identifying steps to peace, introduced a broader notion of violence which encompasses those 'avoidable insults to basic human needs'. These basic needs included security and identity. Galtung goes on to categorise violence into two forms: direct violence and structural violence. The former includes the everyday notion of violence, whereby an individual or group suffers physical or emotional pain as the result of direct action. Structural violence is caused by the institutions and structures of society which result in inequality or 'oppression' among individuals. Chapter two will develop the concept of structural reconciliation, the process of overcoming structural violence.

Similarly, Galtung classified peace into two forms: 'positive peace' and 'negative peace.' Negative peace, according to Galtung, fits essentially the colloquial perception of peace as an end to war. Positive peace includes not only the absence of war, but the absence of structural violence. That is positive peace is the absence of violence, in all its forms and as such has greater value in the long-term as it removes the factors which lead to direct violence. This was Galtungís genius to merge his dual definition of violence with his dual concept of peace. However, critics of Galtung, such as Kenneth Boulding complain of his overly ìtaxonomicalî approach and his ìconstantî use of 'dichotomies'.

John Burton and Human Needs Theory

In England John Burton (1915 - ), former Secretary to the prominent Australian United Nations representative Herbert Evatt (1894-1965), established the Centre for the Analysis of Conflict, University of London in 1966. It was through Burton that conflict resolution techniques expanded to the international arena, following his problem-solving workshops in Cyprus and Sri Lanka. In 1981, Burton moved to the United States where he collaborated in the founding of the Institute for Conflict Analysis and Resolution at George Mason University in 1982.

Burton, synthesized the main theoretical assumptions of conflict resolution, which are known as 'human needs theory'. This theory operates on the premise that a pre-condition for the resolution of conflict is that fundamental human needs be met. Burton adopted eight fundamental needs from the basis of the work by the American sociologist Paul Sites and introduced one further need of his own. Those adopted needs included control, security, justice, stimulation, response, meaning, rationality and esteem/recognition. Burtonís additional need was 'role-defence,' the need to defend oneís role. Burton called these 'ontological needs' as he regarded them as a consequence of human nature, which were universal and would be pursued regardless of the consequence.

Antecedents to human needs theory came from a variety of disciplines. In the biological and sociobiological disciplines conflict is perceived to result from competition over scarce resources as a result of common needs. In social psychology Henry Murray, Erich Fromm (1900-1980), and Abraham Maslow (1908-1970) describe needs (some say 'drives') as important in understanding factors for human motivation. Further discussion of human needs theory will be developed in chapter two.

Burton distinguishes ontological needs from values and interests. He defines ontological needs as non-negotiable; values as offering some limited opportunities for negotiation; and interests as negotiable issues. Burton distinguishes conflict from the related term of 'dispute'. He defined ëconflictí as an action over these non-negotiable human needs, whereas a 'dispute' was over negotiable values. Burton distinguishes conflict resolution, from the related terms of conflict management and conflict settlement. To Burton conflict resolution solved deep seemingly intractable issues, whereas settlement only addressed the superficial factors of conflict.

Burton was not without controversy. His notion of needs falls under criticism especially from those cultural anthropologists and relativists, who were (and still are) resistant to universal values, among those were fellow members of the Institute for Conflict Analysis and Resolution, Kevin Avruch and Peter Black.

Despite this Burton had many supporters who applied his methods in other international conflicts. These included people like Herbert Kelman in Palestine-Israel, Edward Azar in Lebanon and Vamik Volkan in Cyprus.

Roger Fisher and Interest-Based Negotiation

In 1978 Roger Fisher (1922- ) a law professor collaborated in the founding of the Harvard Negotiation Project (HNP), and he was a significant figure in the founding of the Programme on Negotiation (PON) at the Harvard Law School in 1983. The Negotiation Journal founded in 1985 included Jeremy Rubin and Roger Fisher among others. Roger Fisher's approach to conflict resolution (or negotiation) was popularised in his book Getting to Yes, which introduced the term 'principled-negotiation.'

The principle-based approach aims to resolve conflict by deferring judgement to a moral principle. Such an approach advocates the need for interest-based negotiations in contrast to those based on a 'position'. For example Fisher would suggest that an interest would include issues like security, esteem and pleasures, whereas positions would define how one achieved those interests.

Fisher encourages the need for empathy and asks the question 'why does one hold one position, and another hold a different one'? Fisher suggests that empathy allows parties to discern the underlying interest which by creativity may result in amicable solutions (what this author would refer to as 're-negotiated positions') to each party. Like Burton, Fisher defines the most powerful interests as human needs, which he identifies as security, economic-well-being, a sense of belonging, recognition, and control over oneís life.

Conflict Transformation

In the 1990s scholars began to refer to conflict resolution with terms such as 'conflict transformation' and 'peace-building'. Keeping with the spirit of Georg Simmel, such terms denote methods of encouraging constructive results from conflict for all parties. John Paul Lederach, Robert Baruch-Bush, Joseph Folger, R. Vayrynen and Peter Wallensteen may be described as adherents of the conflict transformation school. In conflict transformation, conflict is not seen as a final state, but a 'dynamic process' wherein as one problem is solved a new one emerges'. Similarly, the symbolism of the Chinese character for 'crisisí provides cross-cultural evidence of an optimistic notion of conflict and conflict transformation, as the character ìsimultaneously means opportunity'.

In what may be a dramatic creative input to conflict resolution scholarship are provided by lessons from critical and cosmopolitan theory. This is part of the post-modern sociological or philosophical perspective that concludes that mediators can be charged with:

enlarging the boundaries of political community, overcoming sectional and factional differences, expanding the domain of moral responsibility' and promoting relations which conform to some standards of international order.

This alternative to realist international relations theory (which is developed in section 1.3) is heavily influenced by the philosophy of Jurgen Habermas and his interpreters in the field of international relations such as Andrew Linklater and David Held.

1.2 Methods of Needs-Based Conflict Resolution

The main methods of needs-based conflict resolution are: integrative bargaining (Roger Fisher's principled negotiation); analytic or interactive problem-solving (John Burton and Herb Kelman);and the human relations workshops (Leonard Doob). For the purposes of this thesis, only integrative bargaining and interactive problem-solving will be discussed.

The integrative bargaining process, sometimes called principled negotiation, involves negotiation in which the focus is on 'merits of the issues and the parties try to enlarge the available 'pie' rather than stake claims to certain portions of it'. That is integrative bargaining involves 'both concession making and searching for mutually profitable solutions'. Integrative bargaining tries to move beyond position-based bargaining and determine underlying interests.

Interactive or analytic problem-solving is a ìform of third-party consultation or informal mediation 'it is a needs-based approach to resolving conflict'. It begins with an analysis of the political needs and fears. This approach was pioneered by John Burton, and extended by Herbert Kelman. It is a 'nontraditional, nongovernmental approach emphasizing analytical dialogue and problem-solving'. This process is known by former American diplomat Joseph Montville as the ìtrack two, 'or a grass root method of conflict resolution, in contrast to governmental diplomacy which is known as ìtrack one diplomacy'.

1.3 Alternative Approaches to Needs-based Conflict Resolution

This section will introduce the two alternatives to the needs-based approach to conflict resolution which include the 'power-based' and the 'rights-based' approaches. Both these approaches are highly adversarial, and generally result in a win/lose situation.

Power-based

a. Realism
The 'power-based', 'force-based' or 'coercive' approach to international conflict resolution is what is called realism and is the dominant or normative theory of international relations and security studies. Power-based conflict resolution includes both violent and nonviolent forms of coercion-war and diplomacy. Traditional diplomacy is often described as 'war by other methods,' and as such a win/lose situation. Negotiators advance their own 'position' and the process is decided by the most powerful party. John Burton argues that realism ends with 'coercive settlement' and not resolution.

Realist theory argues that international security is best achieved through the action of Great Powers which can create regional power balances in unstable regions across the globe, by force or by 'geostrategic mediation' ('diplomacy'). Henry Kissinger, former US Secretary of State in the early 1970s, was a powerful advocate of such an approach to conflict resolution. The Sinai I (1974), and Sinai II (September 1975), ceasefire agreements which lay the foundations for Camp David Accords (September 1978) and then the Egypt-Israel Peace Treaty (1979) were examples of settlements based on power politics.

Presidents of the United States of America such as Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, George Bush Snr., Bill Clinton, and George Bush Jnr, and their respective Secretaries of State have used 'American muscle' or power-based approaches to resolving conflict. Such mediatory actions may include nonviolent coercive approaches like tying action to aid, such as military aid. For example, the decision by the United States in the 'spring of 1975 to freeze an Israeli request for $3 000 million in military aid was meant to induce Israel to accept an interim agreement with Egypt'.

Realist theory, is slowly being questioned by international relations scholars. Deiniol Jones, argues that realism as a 'moral and political commitment,' is flawed due to its 'overemphasis on states as an end in themselves and not society; [its] narrow perspective of power' and its overly ìpessimisticî view of human nature. As discussed in chapter two, power and its relationship with the attainment of fundamental needs, is argued to be self-sustaining within a cooperation-based system. The self-centred, competitive-blinkered, Hobbesian or Realism approach, grounded in the belief of international anarchy needs to remember that ìhumans evolved with a desire to belong, not to compete'.

Conflict manipulation

Included within the realist approach this author would suggest is conflict manipulation which is a deceitful method of settling a conflict. Conflict manipulation, is a public relations exercise approach to diplomacy, where there is an appearance of a conflict resolution process whilst in reality, dialogue is only engaged to 'buy-time' and increase bargaining power. This is a short term approach to conflict resolution. Once the manipulated party discovers the deceit, they may retaliate or, at the very least, re-activate the dispute, thus undoing any progress achieved.

This author will outline in chapter three, that the establishment of Israeli settlements within the West Bank, Gaza Strip and the Golan Heights in the 1970s, 1980s, and then the renewed effort in the 1990s is an example of conflict manipulation. Conflict manipulation gives the superficial view that there is a 'peace process' whereas in practice the time taken during ënegotiationsí enables the more powerful party to advance their position.

Past examples of conflict manipulation within the context of Israel have included Moshe Dayan's establishment of 'facts (settlements) on the ground'. An approach, this author would suggest, is analogous to the 'practical Zionist' approach of the early twentieth century. This approach contrasted with the diplomatic methods of 'political' or 'diplomatic' Zionists' such as the founding father of modern Zionism Theodor Herzl.

b. Marxism

Marxism, considered by some as a 'social movement,' is another approach which falls into the coercive approach to handling conflict. Marxist and neo-Marxist conflict theorists see 'power' as the control over economic resources and property, and seek its elimination by a 'worldwide class revolution'. History by Marxists is regarded as the history of exploiters, those in control of the modes of production, and those without control, the exploited, which results in a class struggle. From these premises, Marx drew the conclusion in the Communist Manifesto that the capitalist class would be overthrown and that it would be eliminated by a worldwide working-class revolution and replaced by a classless society.

Marxist adherents within conflict resolution scholarship include Richard Rubenstein, Professor of Conflict Resolution at George Mason University. He sees Marxism as a way to occupy a 'common relationship to the means of production, existing across ethnic, cultural, religious and national boundaries and ìdestined to become a self-conscious identity group'. However, what has happened in both capitalist and 'communist' state managed systems Rubenstein argues 'represents what Marx called false identities, in the sense of being premature stopping points in the development of a more complete identity'. Rubenstein concludes in his support of the Marxist approach which states that human needs can only be fully developed when 'men and women [sic.] become masters of production of the state of themselves'.

Critics, such as Jim Wallis, argue that Marxism as an ideology underestimates the corruptibility of the self-appointed elites who would carry out the utopian task. Secondly, Wallis argues that Marxism over-estimates how much humanity could be changed by top-down processes.

Rights-based

a. International Law

The rights-based approach to conflict 'resolution' (settlement) involves resolution based on a standard or normative principle commonly recognised by the parties concerned. Often, the legal system is used as a source of those norms. Rights-based approaches to international conflict settlement may be found in the International Court of Justice (ICJ/World Court, the Hague), and the newly created International Criminal Court (ICC). The jurisdiction of the first deals with state disputes and the latter is the domain of individual indictments for human rights violations.

In the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, recourse is not possible to the World Court, as the Palestinian people do not yet have sovereign rights of a nation-state. As for the ICC it remains to be seen what effect it will have in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. The ICC may play a critical role, given that some countries within the European community have already taken steps to indict persons (for example Prime Minister Ariel Sharon) for war crimes, although to date these have proved unsuccessful. Despite this, such a threat is real enough that Israeli generals have been known to check with lawyers before travelling to Europe.

Methods of rights-based conflict resolution include both: formal (adjudication in courts) and informal law (arbitration, and alternate dispute resolution).

b. History

Historical narratives are another way of determining a 'right'. Historians, like lawyers, make a case which may contribute to the growing body of ëlore,í that becomes accepted as a body of ëfactí. This 'pseudo-law' (lore) of history becomes the standard for establishing right from wrong in a contemporary situation. History is potentially more of a political statement, an ideology, than an objective law.

Historians relevant to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict include traditional historians I (Bernard Lewis, Martin Gilbert and Howard Sachar), traditional historians II (Martin Kramer, and Daniel Pipes), and new historians (Benny Morris, Avi Shlaim, Illan Pappe).

The first group of traditional historians provides a Zionist sympathetic perspective, the second group provides a sensational version of Islam and the third group presents a more humanist approach to the conflict, identifying acts of inhumanity by both the Zionists and the various Arab neighbours.

Scholarship that has developed from the Palestinian side is much less developed. The most prominent Palestinian historical scholar would be Walid Khalidi.

1.4 A Synthesis of Conflict 'Resolution' Methodologies

Conflict resolution scholarship, despite its preference for a needs-based or cooperation approach to conflict resolution, still acknowledges the place power-based and rights-based methods have in conflict resolution.

As such needs-based conflict resolution has a more extensive range of methodologies available to it than power or rights-based paradigms alone. Figure 1 summarises the various methods of conflict resolution including resolution based on power, rights, principles and cooperation. An overlap is indicated between each of these approaches by the arrangement of the horizontal brackets. Preference is for resolution of conflict based on cooperation and mutual interests although other mechanisms exist which can be used as a tool to help resolve conflict.

Specific types of conflict-handling mechanisms include coercion, avoidance, arbitration, adjudication, negotiation, mediation and reconciliation. The most adversarial approach and least joint participatory approach is coercion, and the least adversarial and most mutual participatory approach is reconciliation.

'Coercion' includes both the violent and nonviolent methods of force. The United Nations Charter Chapter VII resolutions includes both nonviolent (for example economic sanctions) and violent (that is military) forms of coercion. 'Avoidance', like force, is a short-term solution. Avoidance would include territorial separation, such as partition of states, and relies on the saying 'good fences make good neighbours'. 'Adjudication' of conflict involves a third party who pronounces a judgement on a grievance. This third party is most often connected with the state.

In 'arbitration', an arbiter such as a judge or lawyer settles the dispute. The arbiter may be selected by the disputing parties. Examples of arbitration include industrial arbitration such as employer-trade unions, employer-employee, divorce disputes and minor matters in local courts. The distinction between arbitration and adjudication is arbitration is generally a more informal and less expensive process, which tends to leave parties with more amicable results. An early form of international arbitration was developed following the Hague Peace Conference of 1899.

In this context 'negotiation' implies the parties making an agreement, in the absence of a third party, although one party may still have slightly more power than the other. In other contexts negotiation may imply an agreement by parties in a non-judicial or non-arbitral setting.

In 'mediation' and 'facilitation' a third party helps an agreement to be concluded. The rapid development of mediation and alternate dispute resolution is evident in the United States given from 1971 to 1986 there was an increase in the number of dispute resolution centres from three to 350 according to the American Bar Association (ABA) Special Committee.

Avoidance Arbitration Negotiation Reconciliation

Coercion Adjudication Mediation/Facilitation

Conflict Conflict Conflict Conflict Conflict Conflict
suppression manipulation management settlement resolution transformation

Distributive Integrative Interactive
Bargaining bargaining problem-solving

Power-based Rights-based Principle-based Needs-based

Realism Law e.g international law, domestic law Cosmopolitanism
Historical narratives

Figure 1. Conflict handing mechanisms

In 'reconciliation' both parties seek friendship from each other. Conciliation 'implies a closer relationship of parties that lead to an agreement' (not just settlement). Conciliation may involve use of Burtonís ìcontrolled communicationî, Kelmanís 'problem-solving', or Jurgen Habermas' 'discourse ethics', which implies agreement is based on an equal sharing of power. Discourse ethics is a political theory which offers a 'theory of justice - a theory of the right'. Jones considers that a critical mediation theory, in particular cosmopolitan theory, takes a 'broader historical view of an emancipatory political process', rather than ìlimited micro-dynamics of the problem-solving workshop'.

Conclusion

This chapter has firstly outlined gaps in the literature and suggested hypotheses for the resolution of conflict, in particular the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Secondly, an overview of the terminology and history of conflict resolution has been provided. This has included the origins of conflict resolution scholarship from sociology, social psychology and political science.

Thirdly, conflict has been identified as a consequence of frustrated human needs. Those needs have been developed by a variety of scholars, but especially prominent is the work of sociologist Paul Sites and international relations scholar John Burton. Those basic needs identified by Sites include control, security, justice, stimulation, response, meaning, rationality and esteem. Lastly, the methods of ëconflictí resolution were established including coercive-based, rights-based, or needs-based approaches.

The next chapter will expand on the human needs theory developed by Paul Sites and John Burton and incorporate this into a general method for conflict resolution. It will be demonstrated that such a method, which is built within a needs-based approach to conflict resolution, is fundamental for reconciliation and the building of peace.

'Who is the hero?' Ask the rabbis of the Talmud. Their answer: 'One who changes an
enemy into a [friend].'; Jay Rothman, Resolving Identity-based Conflict, 1997, p. xiii.

Chapter 2 - A general method for conflict resolution

The previous chapter identified the historical origins, the theoretical assumptions and contemporary approaches of needs-based conflict resolution. The basic theoretical assumption of this approach is to satisfy the fundamental needs and fears of the conflicting parties. Those needs commonly identified are Burton/Sites needs of control, security, justice, stimulation, response, meaning, rationality and esteem. The previous chapter also examined alternative approaches to conflict resolution such as realism, Marxism, international law and national historiographies. Each of these systems potentially involves a win/lose scenario, domination and self-interest.

This chapter will introduce a general method of conflict resolution. The requisites for resolution it will be argued are the meeting of fundamental human needs. The consequence of conflict resolution is reconciliation which results in a state of peace (positive peace). Those requisites for peace are based on Burton/Sites work in addition to others such as Abraham Maslow and Erich Fromm. Those fundamental needs include four 'rational' needs: control, justice, security and rational stimulation; and four ëemotionalí needs: esteem, meaning, identity and emotional stimulation. It will be argued that a combination of these eight needs produces the ninth need of peace.

Secondly, this chapter will identify the prerequisites for conflict resolution. Those prerequisites it will be argued include two theoretical factors: hope and empathy; and two practical factors: trust and cooperation. It will be shown that what enables the union of these theoretical and practical factors is an inclusive worldview, based on non-violence principles.

These six factors: hope, empathy, trust, cooperation, inclusive worldviews and non-violence are what will be referred to as psychological and structural 'bridges.' These serve to overcome psychological and structural 'obstacles'. Those 'obstacles' to conflict resolution include despair, antipathy, mistrust, domination, exclusive world views and violence, that is the opposites to the psychological bridges to fundamental needs attainment (and subsequently a sense of peace). This chapter will outline methods of bridging such psychological and structural obstacles by modification of the social, political, religious, legal and economic systems which may serve to counter or perpetuate direct and structural violence.

The proposed general method of conflict resolution owes much to Burton's Generic Theory of Conflict, which has made a crucial contribution to the field in establishing the 'human needs paradigm'. However, this chapter will show Burton's theory can be extended by application of the prerequisites to needs attainment, as mentioned above.

For the purposes of this discussion, reconciliation may be defined as the 'restoration of a fractured relationship'. The terms 'psychological reconciliation' will be used to describe the consequence of overcoming psychological obstacles, and 'structural reconciliation' will be used to imply the overcoming of structural obstacles.

A. Prerequisites for Conflict Resolution

This section will demonstrate that conflict resolution requires firstly parties to recognise the possibility of resolution; secondly parties to recognise the common humanity and needs of the other; and lastly the realisation of fundamental needs attainment (such as security, justice, control, meaning and identity). It will be argued that conflict resolution, psychological and structural reconciliation require tapping into the emotions that develop a sense of hope, trust, empathy, cooperation, inclusiveness and nonviolence. Such a process it is argued leads to a sense of peace and friendship between former enemies.

2.1 Hope/Belief in the possibility of resolution

Hope is a 'central need for goal attainment behaviour' and as such is a primary motivating force for conflict resolution. During the time this author conducted informal interviews with people regarding the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, he was repeatedly confronted by the opinion that this conflict had always been and would always remain. Such a despairing opinion may be regarded as a primary psychological obstacle to conflict resolution. Overcoming such an obstacle requires transforming what is unthinkable, or what is perceived as ënonsenseí into reality or common sense. Such a quality is found in hope.

In the seminal text on Positive Psychology, hope is described as a 'thinking process,' a 'belief' and not just as an emotion. 'Hopeful thought' is defined as a process or 'belief that one can find pathways to desired goals and become motivated to use those pathways'. In a conflict-resolution context, these pathways may be activated to achieve the restoration of trust and cooperation amongst communities. Such a quality may produce remarkable examples of stable and affirming human relationships.

Hope is built on the premise that change or a new way is possible. Hope taps into the creative, inspirational dimension of an individual the part that 'dreams.' The realisation of these dreams, however, may be hampered by other individuals and/or the existing 'system': the socio-political-religious-legal-economic order of society.

a. Attitudinal change

The first source for hope is that individuals have the possibility for and do change. Examples of attitudinal and/or personality change of individuals are demonstrated in Carol Magai and Susan McFadden's work on The Role of Emotions in Social and Personality Development. This book includes a number of anecdotal examples of change in eminent persons from history, including great religious leaders like Moses, Siddhatha Gautama (Buddha), Mohammed, Paul, Augustine, Francis of Assisi, and Theodor Herzl. Specific examples of personality change included Clive of India who changed from introvert to extrovert; Lawrence of Arabia from extrovert to introvert, Leo Tolstoy from 'sick' soul to 'healthy' soul. Changes in ideology included conversion from capitalism to communism by Arthur Koestler and George Orwell. Evidence was given that such changes frequently resulted during times of trauma and crisis, for example in the personality change as demonstrated by the mid life crisis of Carl Jung with his psychotic break in his 40s.

These above examples demonstrate a potential 'positive' change in personality and/or attitudes, especially during a period of emotional upheaval or crisis. However, in such a context, a 'negative' personality and/or attitudinal change may also occur. This would include behavioural changes which lead to violent, exclusive, or intolerant behaviour; such as evidenced in the action of fanaticism, assassins and suicide bombers. Similarly governments adopt training programs that result in the creation of a 'soldier' through boot camp training - a process which 'turns' a normally peaceable person into a person who may kill, despite personal feelings, on the basis of an order

b. Political change

The second source for hope is that political change occurs. Some of the nonviolent upheavals in global politics that occurred during the 1990ís include the fall of the Berlin Wall, the collapse of communism in USSR, the rise of democracy in Eastern Europe, and an end of apartheid in South Africa. In Northern Ireland and Sri Lanka there has been significant progress between the conflicting parties. In the Middle East, steps towards positive political change included peace agreements by Israel with both Egypt (1979) and Jordan (1994).

Examples of political change include the re-building of relationship between Germany and France - two 'nations' which had long been in conflict prior to World War II including the Franco-Prussian (1870-71) and Napoleonic wars (1804-1815). Other examples include the building of amity between England and France - two nations which have been in conflict including the Battle of Hastings (1066), the Hundred Years War (1338-1453), the North American/Seven Year War (1756-63) and the Napoleonic Wars. Similarly, enmity between Australia and Japan as nations has eased despite the fact that many of the people who fought in the Second World War are still alive. This is evidence that rapid political change, in particular the creation of national visions that are conciliatory and inclusive of 'former enemies' is possible within as little as a three generation period.

c. Religious change

The third source for hope is that religious change occurs. For more than 400 years Europe was divided by the struggle between Catholicism and Protestantism, the legacy of which meant that even in Australia in the 1960s it was difficult for a Catholic to marry a Protestant. However, an increase in ecumenism eventually did occur. Similarly changes occurred within the Roman Catholic Church with respect to the language of the service which following the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965) became the language of the state and not Latin. Such changes were almost 500 years after Martin Luther's efforts of 1517 and the translations of Christian Bibles to the vernacular. Such an example is a reminder that although change is possible, it may take many generations for conservatism to be nudged, or as the case be 'yanked' along.

Other examples of religious reformation include within Judaism with the rise of the reformed Judaism movement in the 1800s. Such acts of moderation and reform have provided the basis for more tolerant and harmonious interfaith or non-faith communities.

d. Economic changes

The fourth source for hope is that economic change occurs. A source for hope that economic change is possible in a short time is evident in post World War II Europe and Japan. The American-sponsored rehabilitation fund (the 'Marshall Plan') for Germany produced significant improvement to the welfare of millions. Such a policy was in contrast to the draconian restitution and retribution measures that had been a part of the conclusion of World War I. A process which provided such a miserable environment that enabled Nazism to gain the minds of the German people and the eventual renewal of war and conquest.

2.2 Trust, Empathy, Cooperation, Inclusive/Nonviolent Worldviews

Together with hope-building, establishing trust is the second foundation to encourage psychological reconciliation and ultimately conflict resolution. Empathy, cooperation and nonviolence are prime examples of such trust or confidence-building measures.

a. Inclusive/nonviolent worldviews

The first principle for 'sustainable' cooperative behaviour is non-violence. The basis for such a belief is foundational to various religious and non-religious traditions which encourage the promotion of a culture of 'self-sacrificing love'. Such a culture is also argued to be a most powerful method of 'persuading the oppressor' to change. The strength for this approach is based on its 'non threatening manner' and has demonstrated its effectiveness throughout the world. Classic examples of nonviolent social change include Mahatma Gandhi's efforts in British India; Martin Luther King Jnr.'s actions in the United States; Aung Sun Suu Kyi in Burma; William Wilberforce's efforts to end slavery in the British Empire; as well as the many others who have promoted non-violence to achieve more equitable social arrangements regardless of the basis of race, religion, gender, sexuality, and nationality.

Probably the most prominent sociological work on the role of non-violence and social change is Gene Sharp's The Politics of Nonviolent Action. This work has been influential to the nonviolence movement principally in Eastern Europe and the Middle East. Within this book Sharp identifies that non-violent social change may be brought about by three main ways: conversion, accommodation and nonviolent coercion. He recognises that conversion provides the deepest impact on an individual but occurs less than change on the basis of accommodation or non-violent coercion.

Further discussion on the origins of inclusive and non-violent worldviews will be made in the following section on 'Origins of a Worldview'.

b. Empathising and cooperating with another

The second principle for sustainable cooperative behaviour is empathy. Empathy may be defined as 'an other oriented emotional response elicited by and congruent with the perceived welfare of someone else'. Empathy is the ability to understand another's needs and fears. Empathic emotions include 'sympathy, compassion, softheartedness, tenderness and the like'.

Empathy, leads to the development of shared psychological understanding. Such a process enables the 'bridging' of the psychological obstacles that divide parties. One important method of encouraging such 'bridge development' is the use of analogy as it may create a fresh perspective on conflict. For example, persons in national struggles for self-determination, may seek lessons from historical parallels. This might include lessons from the partition of British India (and the princely states) into Pakistan (East and West) and India in 1947; the separation of Pakistan into Pakistan and Bangladesh in 1971; the partition of Bosnia-Hercegovina into Serb and Muslim-Croat entities in 1997; and the establishment of the European or non-European colonial-settler states in North and South America; Australasia; Asia and Africa.

In contrast to psychological 'bridge-building' processes such as analogy development are 'bridge-preventative' or 'bridge-destructive' processes which reject the notion of similarity or analogy. This author hypothesises that this rejection of comparability may be the result of personal bias or by the level of a persons analytical and synthetic ability, which is argued is related to an individual's ignorance, knowledge or amount of exposure to a particular worldview.

To give an anecdote of such a situation take for example this author's experience as a technical assistant at the Royal Botanic Gardens in Sydney. Here, this author encountered the classic dispute between those botanical taxonomists who would maintain keeping a plant taxonomical group together (the lumpers) in contrast to those who maintained breaking a group up into smaller categories (the splitters).

The question of maintenance of a plant group or splitting a group raises two broader issues: firstly, what are the criteria used to form a taxonomic group? Secondly, what are the motivations for a classification (or a generalisation)? It is these two issues that may lead to the questioning of classifiers' objectivity or their level of knowledge. However, certainly, a taxonomist as a human may be given to subjective interests such as personal prestige in publishing new classifications, in contrast to 'pure' objectivity.

Similarly, in a conflict, there needs to be identification of the criteria used to establish an analogous conflict situation as well as an appraisal of the motivations for saying a conflict is similar or dissimilar. Personal involvement in a conflict must also be taken into account, and the questioning of objectivity.

Empathy involves looking at the common humanity in individuals. It avoids the conflict promotion process of demonising and dehumanising others. Needs and fears of the other are discussed and recognition of the common pain suffered is acknowledged.

Such a process might involve looking at the security and justice needs of other groups seeking self-determination and security. Figure 2 illustrates the top 45 wars or state instigated killings of the last sixty years. Of these 45 there are 20 instances highlighted to give a perspective of which groups have suffered the most in terms of sheer number of people. What is evident from figure 2 is the most brutal conflicts for example, civil wars in China, Ethiopia, Nigeria, Algeria, and the Sudan have received little international awareness raising or assistance. This is in contrast to Israel and Northern Ireland which have had relatively far fewer total fatalities but far greater assistance.

B. The Requisites for Conflict Resolution

The previous section introduced some of the prerequisites for conflict resolution, including the existence of hope, the presence of non-violent behaviour, empathy and the development of trust and cooperation. This section will identify the requisites for conflict resolution which it is argued is the attainment of fundamental human needs. Some further reflection on the origin of non-violent/inclusive worldviews and their perception of fundamental needs and fears and value needs will also be made.

Edwin Locke defines a need as 'an objective requirement of a living organism's survival and well-being'. Like Burton, Locke sees values as distinguished from needs on the basis that 'needs are inborn' whereas 'values are acquired, that is learned'. Locke regards that needs exist 'even if one is not aware of them; [whereas] values exist in the conscious (or the subconscious)'. In this thesis the former type will be referred to as fundamental needs, while the latter will be referred to a value need. Value needs are what one 'regards as conducive to one's welfare,' compared to a fundamental need 'which is conducive'.

Paul Sites, needs theorist, in his review of needs theory, classified Erich Fromm's (1900-1980) taxonomy of basic needs as relatedness, transcendence-creativeness, rootedness-brotherliness, sense of identity-individuality and the need for a frame of orientation. He summarised Abraham Maslowís (1908-1970) basic needs as

Casualties of War

Figure 2. Twenty examples of the worst 45 wars, civil wars or state instigated killings, since the 1940s (excluding World War II and Stalinís mass killings).
physiological needs, safety, belongingness and love, esteem self-actualization, cognitive need (the need to know and understand) and aesthetic needs.

Henry Murray listed 20 needs that motivate most behaviour. They included such needs as abasement (the need to comply), achievement (the need to overcome), affiliation (the need to join), aggression (the need to injure), autonomy (the need to be independent), blamavoidance (the need to avoid blame), counteraction (the need to defend honour), defendance (the need to defend against blame) as well as the other 12 needs that are summarized in table 1. Other needs theorists such as Schwartz, Fisher, Burton, Fromm and Maslow have already been discussed in the 'Introduction'.

The Eight Fundamental Needs

From the work of needs scholars as outlined in table 1, one can see eight basic human needs: esteem, control, meaning, identity, security, justice, stimulation (both rational and emotional), and transcendence (which this author argues gives a 'sense of peace').

This arrangement closely matches Paul Sites need-schema of recognition (esteem), meaning (identity), control, security, justice, stimulation (enjoyment - emotional), and rationality (learning - rational stimulation). One major exception is the absence in Sites classification of the need for transcendence (peace), as proposed by Maslow and Fromm.

In brief each of these needs is outlined as follows.

Esteem/Recognition is the need to feel special and loved; it gives a sense of dignity and worth.

Meaning is the need to have purpose and is inextricably linked with identity as without identity there is no meaning. The absence of meaning or a 'meaning gap' increases an individualís sense of despair.

Identity is the need to be part of a group, to be part of some 'big picture' in terms of relationships, ideas or tradition; it is the need for a sense of belonging.

Control is the need to have power of self to determine present and future; and is important for esteem and identity.

Security is the need for security within ones surroundings, and includes physical and economic security.

Justice is the need which calls for fairness in relationship to all aspects of life.

NEEDS

AUTHOR
Esteem
'ego' is loved
Control
'ego' is free
Meaning Identity
'ego' has a 'ego' belongs purpose
Security
'ego' is secure
Justice
'ego' is fairly treated Stimulation
Rational Emotional
'ego' 'ego enjoys'
understands

Transcendence
'ego' at peace
Sites 1972
Control
Meaning
Security
Justice
Rationality
Response
Burton 1986
Recognition/Control
Role defence
Meaning
Security
Justice
Rationality/Stimulation
Response

Fisher and Ury 1981
Control
Belonging/Security
Economic well-
being
Justice
Maslow 1954/Esteem
Love/Belongingness
Safety/Cognitive knowledge/Aesthetics/Self actualization
Schwartz 1996/Benevolence
Achievement/Self direction
Power
Security
Conformity
Tradition
Universalism/Stimulation
Hedonism

Murray 1938

Exhibition/Dominance
Autonomy
Achievement (to overcome)
Infavoidance
Rejection

Affiliation/Harm avoidance
Nurturance
Succourance
Order
Abasement
Aggression

Counteraction

Understanding

Play
Sentience sex
Fromm 1955/Sense of
identity, individuality/Rootedness
Brotherliness/Transcendence creativeness

The stimulation need is required in two forms: the emotional, which is enjoyment and the need for pleasure; and the rational, which is learning. Peace is the need for overall wellbeing and results in the transcendence from anxiety. Diener et. al. discuss the 'subjective' nature 'of well-being' which includes 'experiencing pleasant emotions, low levels of negative moods and high life satisfaction'.

Adjacent to each need listed in table 1 is a corresponding reference to 'ego', a reference to self. This metaphor for 'self,' is used to emphasise the self-seeking (characteristically selfish) nature of individuals. This 'universal egoist' approach claims that 'everything we do, no matter how noble and beneficial to others, is really directed to the goal of self-benefit'. As a consequence motivations for action becomes ego wants love, ego wants meaning, ego wants to relate, ego wants fun, ego wants control, ego wants to be secure, ego wants to be fairly treated, and ego wants to learn. The consequence of the attainment of these eight needs is 'ego' is at peace.

This theory which outlines the essentials to the attainment of peace is critical to understand. This has considerable implications for the phrase 'no peace without justice,' for according to the above model on peace attainment, justice is only one criterion for peace.

Within the Palestinian-Israeli conflict the rhetoric on one side calls for 'justice' (for example the Palestinian position) while another side calls for 'security' (the Israeli position). However, as the above model demonstrates the attainment of peace (psychological and structural reconciliation) requires justice, security and five other fundamental needs.

From table 1, a conceptual image of the psychological needs was arranged in figure 3. At first glance it gives the impression of a linear progression. However, one must
recognize that these steps are situation is an extremely complex system of social context and individual consciousness that has also been affected by biological and socialization factors (as summarized in figure 5).

These needs were then divided on the basis of their quality as either 'soft' or 'hard.' Those 'soft' ideas included esteem, meaning, identity and emotional stimulation. These were considered as more 'emotional' or 'heart' centred. Those 'hard' needs included control, security, justice and rational stimulation. These were considered as more 'rational' or 'mind' centred. These metaphors are used for communicative purposes despite recognition that these metaphors reflect Western views of the role of emotions and rationality.

Burton would appear also to notice this paradox of needs in the following statement:

How can there be a marriage of the human need for identity, recognition, stimulus and development generally, on the one hand, and the necessity for control that ensures distributive justice, on the other?

Given that the attainment of fundamental needs is a prerequisites for conflict resolution, what other factors are needed? The answer is just like a good cake requires more than just the right ingredients, it also requires the right proportions and the right time for these elements to be prepared and baked. Similarly, conflict resolution entails understanding the basic needs, adjusting the manifestations of these needs to a particular social context in a particular way. It requires 'trade-offs' of needs, and interests to achieve some form of mutual gain and satisfaction.

Worldviews as Determinants of Value Needs

Worldviews are an individualís belief and value system. Such a system enables one to 'make sense' of their experiences. It includes an individual's basic needs, ìinterests' and fears. Worldviews are an important factor in moving parties in conflict 'towards reconciliation and coexistence'. Oscar Nudler, Project Coordinator of the United Nations University (Costa Rica), refers to the 'highest phase in conflict resolution' as restructuring [worldview]. Such a situation involves both parties cooperating, transcending their old frames and creating new social relationships.

A worldview determines an individual or groupís position on an issue. That position includes the priority or value an issue holds for the group. The highest priority interests are known as value needs. In contrast a 'fundamental need' is of more universal value to humanity than a value need, which is culturally restrained.

Similarly, a worldview determines an individual or groups fears. A fear in this case is defined as the emotion felt due to the absence of an interest or a need being met. The level of anxiety rises, with the maximal anxiety being called the fundamental fears. Pathways to fear include: conditioning; exposure to traumatic stimulation; vicarious acquisition; and direct or indirect observation of people displaying fear.

The Origins of a Worldview

Worldview formation is very much a part of our inner self, and in general individuals are unconscious of their worldview. This next section will argue that the formation of an individualís worldview involves a combination of socialization and biological elements within a socio-political-economic context as summarized in figure 5.

Descriptions of this kind are called an 'interactionist' perception on worldview formation. Such a process synthesises the lessons learnt from the Darwinian 'nature' view of behaviour compared with the contrasting 'nurture' view of behaviour development.

The first influence on worldview development is the biological factor or genetics of an individual. This has an effect on the personality, gender, ethnicity, intellect, physical aesthetics, sexuality, and hormone production of an individual.

In particular it is hypothesised that gender and personality affect the process of dialogue and political negotiations. Roderick W. Gilkey and Leonard Greenhalgh have argued that there has been 'almost no comprehensive attention given to how personality affects negotiation'.

The second major contributor to worldview formation is the socialization and individualisation process. This is a process that involves how an individual is educated within a formal or informal context. Individuals are educated informally from their families where they receive a particular positive, negative or indifferent views on religion, philosophy, history, politics, culture and nationality.

The result of this socialization and individualization process is the development of a worldview. This worldview then determines the needs, interests or fears of an individual (Figure 4). Controversy, still remains whether fundamental needs can be discerned. Criticism of basic human need theorists stems from lack of empirical research and the danger of theoretical assumptions which may not be valid because of cross-cultural variation.

Schwartz, in an attempt to account for a scheme which was more empirically grounded, performed a number of studies to address the cross-cultural perspectives on values. However, despite advances made by Schwartz, the scheme lacked a hierarchy, which was expanded on by Chulef, Read and Walsh's work in their hierarchy of taxonomical goals. This approach continued with the same methodology as used to obtain the five factors identified in the 'big five' personality model.

Developing More Inclusive Worldviews

Identifying one's own prejudices and biases is important in conflict resolution. English philosopher Francis Bacon (1561-1626) graphically called for the recognition and abandoning of prejudices and preconceived attitudes, his so-called 'idols'. These included preconceived ideas or common modes of thought given common cultural 'norms' ('idols of the tribe'), or individual idiosyncrasies ('idols of the cave'); language based idols ('idols of the marketplace'), or from tradition ('idols of the theatre'). The principles laid down in the Novum Organum had an important influence on the importance of objectivity and the subsequent development of science.

Making changes in a worldview is highly dependant on age, experience and optimistic outlook. There is a tendency for worldview change to be infrequent in adults. Consider for example, the frequency of religious conversion, denominational change, political party change, or the overcoming of a fear such as of heights or of sharks. Similarly, consider the proverbs 'you canít teach an old dog new tricks', and 'a leopard doesn't change 'his' spots' as examples of resistance to change.

C. The Prerequisites for Societal Change

In Gordon Allport's classic text The Nature of Prejudice he argues that legislation may be a 'sharp tool in the battle against discrimination'. Allport, however, recognizes that legislation has only an 'indirect bearing upon the reduction of personal prejudice. It cannot coerce thoughts or instil subjective tolerance'. In effect, legislation says to the citizen that 'your attitudes and prejudices are yours alone, but you may not act them out to a point where they endanger the lives, livelihood, peace of mind, of groups of American citizens'.

Gene Sharp, John Burton and Herb Kelman all regard some elements of social conformity through structural controls as necessary for conflict resolution. This is exemplified by Sharp who would hope firstly to persuade people of the moral value; however, he recognises that for a time, change of behaviour must be based on incentives and disincentives. Such a process requires programs addressing factors of social, political, religious, legal and the economic process - an example of structural reconciliation.

As previously outlined, the nonviolent methods which are used to change behaviour include conversion (protest or persuasion), accommodation (cooperation or noncooperation) and nonviolent coercion. Examples of this include letters of opposition (protest), boycotts (noncooperation) and strikes (coercion). The effectiveness of these methods stems from their capacity to engage with the individualís psychological processes. Subsequent behaviour is based on a combination of the following: habit, fear of sanctions, moral obligation, self-interest, psychological identification with the ruler, zones of indifference and absence of self-confidence among subjects.

In a similar way governments encourage social change or conformity by implementing laws which encourage or coerce behaviour change on the basis of fear of sanctions and moral obligation. For example, anti-discrimination laws, and equal opportunity laws may change behaviour because of fear of sanctions; social policy by encouraging equity in housing, health and education may change behaviour because of moral obligation; and housing incentives, tax exemptions, school syllabi, and equal opportunity to employment may encourage change for self-interest.

2.3 Summary of a General Method for Conflict Resolution

Attainment of the eight fundamental needs (control, security, justice, rational stimulation, emotional stimulation, esteem, meaning and identity) is encouraged by the attainment of peace-centred ideals such as democracy, civil liberties and universal human rights. These needs exist in contrast to the eight fundamental fears (domination, insecurity, inequality, boredom, depression, loneliness, meaninglessness, and identitylessness). These fears are amplified under fear promotion measures such as autocracies and oppressive regimes.

The general method for conflict resolution is summarised in Figure 9. This model demonstrates that at the basis of conflict are fundamental psychological and structural 'obstacles'. Those psychological obstacles include despair, antipathy, exclusive worldviews, domination and violence. These are overcome via psychological and structural 'bridges,' which facilitate the fulfilment of fundamental needs at the individual and societal level. Those fundamental psychological needs are control, security, justice, rational stimulation, emotional stimulation, esteem, meaning and identity.

The prerequisites, or psychological bridges, for attainment of these fundamental needs are:

a hope/ belief in the possibility of conflict resolution,
the ability to empathise with 'the other,'
the principle of an inclusive/nonviolent worldview, and
the evidence of trust-building measures and cooperation.

The prerequisites for societal change require implementation within the structures of society those factors which encourage fundamental need satisfaction. These changes are required within the social, political, religious, legal and economic systems.

Conclusion
This chapter has developed a general method for conflict resolution. The theoretical basis of this method is founded on the assumption that peace is attained when the fundamental needs of an individual within their context are fulfilled. Meeting an individualís fundamental needs requires first the vision for peace and coexistence (hope), secondly, the understanding of anotherís needs and fears (empathy) and lastly, practical evidence of peaceful living (trust, cooperation, and non-violence). Such a process is most fully developed within an inclusive, empathic, and nonviolent worldview framework.

The next chapter will outline a program for resolution of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict based on this general method for conflict resolution developed in chapter two. A description and analysis of key political, religious, economic and educational positions will be developed and measured according to a needs-based conflict resolution approach as developed during chapters one and two.

Chapter three will focus on track one diplomacy within a needs-based conflict resolution approach. The author recognises need-based approaches are generally applied to track two or lower levels of 'diplomacy'. However, as will be shown in the following chapter, analysis of a needs-based approach within a track one (leaders to leaders) diplomacy setting is valuable.

Chapter 3 - Practical approaches to resolving the Palestinian-Israeli conflict

Judah Magnes 1930
The one that maintains we can establish a Jewish Home here through the suppression of the political aspirations of the Arabs, and therefore a Home necessarily established on bayonets over a long period [is] a policy which I think bound to fail "The other policy holds that we can establish a Home here only if we are true to ourselves as democrats and internationalists" [where we] are eagerly and sincerely at work to find a 'modus vivendi' et operandií with our neighbours.

Desmond Stewart, The Middle East: Temple of Janus, New York: Doubleday and Co., 1971, p. 308.

The creation of a sense of peace, as developed in chapter two, is obtained by meeting the eight fundamental needs, that is the attainment of the four rational needs: control, security, justice, rational stimulation; and the four emotional needs: esteem, meaning, identity and emotional stimulation.

The prerequisites for attaining these eight fundamental needs involve overcoming particular psychological and structural 'obstacles' that are present in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.As the general model for conflict resolution shows certain 'bridges' such as hope, trust, empathy, cooperation, and an inclusive and nonviolent worldview enable the crossing of psychological and structural obstacles. Those structural obstacles that are in the process of reconciliation include those steps that have been made in the social, political, religious, legal and economic order which have promoted a system of empathy, inclusiveness and non-violence.

This chapter will outline practical approaches to resolving the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. This chapter will firstly identify five of the fundamental needs of Palestinian and Israeli Jewish people. It will then identify issues related to the needs for meaning, identity, control, security and justice. Secondly, it will identify the progress of trust-building measures between Palestinian and Israeli Jewish people. This section will outline the agreed and contentious political positions on the issues of security, settlements, Jerusalem, refugees and water. Other positions to be discussed include religious, educational and economic issues.

What this chapter will demonstrate is the level of cooperation that existed at these negotiations. This chapter will analyse such recent political negotiations using the general method for conflict resolution and peace developed in chapter two. This chapter will focus on specific details of the conflict that are being discussed at the political level (track one), in particular the Taba negotiations of January 2001. These negotiations were conducted six months after the reputedly failed Camp David Summit of July 2000. Figure 10 a/b provides the reader a recent political context of Israeli and Palestinian relations.

A. Requisites for Conflict Resolution
3.1 Understanding of Fundamental Needs

The requisites for conflict resolution are the attainment of the fundamental needs as outlined in chapter two. Those needs are control, security, justice, rational stimulation, emotional stimulation, esteem, meaning and identity. The following indicates some of the issues facing the Palestinian and the Israeli Jewish community regarding these fundamental needs. To begin an understanding of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, there deserves discussion on some of the basic fundamental needs. The following compares and contrasts the fundamental needs of meaning, identity, control, security and justice that are shared by both Palestinians and Israeli Jews.

Meaning and Identity need

Those meaning and identity needs analysed in the following section include a perception of a people, a perception of a birthright and a perception of historic heritage in the land.

Perceptions of 'a people'

A primary belief for both Palestinian and Jewish communities is that there exists a Palestinian and Jewish 'people/nation'. If this is the case then what are a 'people/nation'? Are a people, or is the Palestinian or Jewish people, a monoethnic group? A multiethnic group? What happened to the 'people' who inhabited this region previously to the Canaanite, Phoenician, Hebrews, Babylonian, Assyrian, Persian, Syrian, Egyptian, Arab, Druze, European, Lebanese, Turkish and the other people who lived in the region over the last 4000 years? Who would have considered themselves as Palestinian (Falastin/Filastin) in 1850, 1900, 1917 or 1930? Who would have considered themselves as Syrian in 1917? Who would have considered their identity as the village of their ancestors birth? Was there ever a national home for Palestinian people?

Similarly, who are Jewish people? Are the Jewish 'people' a monoethnic group? A multiethnic group? What is the relationship between Yemeni, Ethiopian, Indian, and East European descended Jews? Given the contrast in ethnic-ancestry how can one use ethnic-ancestry as a joining factor for the Jewish identity. Consider the ethnic-religion, what proportion of Israeliís (Jewish Israelis) would say they were religious?

In responding to these questions, this author regards the Palestinian identity as a modern collective identity, just like American, Australian, or Jordanian national identities. Those who are included within this identity include Israeli Palestinians, who make up a fifth of the Israeli population, Palestinians of the Occupied Territories, Palestinians in refugee camps in the surrounding countries of Syria, Jordan and Lebanon; and Palestinians in diaspora in other parts of the Middle East, Europe, North America, Australia or elsewhere.

Although a contentious issue the awareness of oneís identity as Palestinian may be regarded as a consequence and in opposition to the rise of Jewish nationalism in the Middle East in the twentieth Century. Palestinian nationalism was initiated by those Arabic speaking persons who were non-Jewish who lived in the historical region of Palestine. These people unlike their Arabic speaking neighbours did not receive autonomy as did the people in the newly set-up states in Syria, Transjordan (Jordan), Lebanon, Iraq and the Gulf Arab states.

Palestinian nationalism resulted from those people in this forgotten region who felt increased disempowerment, discrimination, and ethnically motivated violence towards themselves. These people collectively became known as Palestinian (English), or Falastin/Filastin (Arabic) an ancient reminder of earlier people of this land (the Philistines). The Philistines, their descendants and the many subsequent 'nations' that conquered or lived in this region intermarried resulting in a community with diverse origins.

Of equal or greater contention is what defines a Jew. This thesis holds that the Jewish people are considered as a collective identity based on historical factors which range from hereditary, to religious to personal choice. The culture whether secular or religious, formed from these lines and is presently still embroiled in the shadow of the Shoah (Holocaust). This author found from his informal interviews that present fears included the ever-present danger of group persecution; and the belief that safety is guaranteed by the existence of a Jewish state.

Control need

Perceptions of a 'land right' and a right to self-determination

A second basic belief is that both Palestinian and Jewish people would argue that they have a right to land in this region. This leads to the following question, how does one argue a birthright to land? Palestinian people have a birthright to land. Jewish people have a historic right to the land. What does this mean? How long does a land claim remain? Is it enough to say I was born here, my parents were born here, and their parents were born here? Is that enough to say I have the right to land?

How do indigenous people from around the world argue their case for land rights? If the Jewish community can initiate 2000 year-old land claims, what land claims can those descended from the Zulu, Native Americans, Celts, the Inuit, the Sami, the Mosquit, the Hawaiians and the Maori claim? What was the percentage of Jewish to non-Jewish people at the time of Balfour Declaration (1917) in this region? How many non-Jewish people lived in this region in 1917? For how long had this region been predominantly a Muslim region? For how long had there been a minority Christian, Druze and Jewish population?

In responding to these questions it can be seen that both the Jewish and Palestinian communities can argue for land rights based on their ancestry. Although there is great diversity in the ethnicity of Jews (for example compare the ethnicity of Indian, Yemeni, Egyptian, Russian or Black Hebrews) and Palestinians (for example compare the ethnicity of Circassian, Turkish, Levantine Arab and Bedouin) both cultures have historic heritage to the land.

However, consider a comparison of Palestinian (Non-Jewish) to Jewish people over the period from 1851-1948 (Table 2). From Table 2 one can see:

The indigenous Jewish population in 1851 was 4% whilst the indigenous Palestinian population was 96%. At the time of Britain's acceptance of 'Palestine' as a Jewish homeland in 1917 (Balfour Declaration) the local Jewish population was about 10%, with a 90% non-Jewish population.

Consider also the question of land ownership. How did land ownership change following the Balfour Declaration? An appraisal of Jewish land purchases by Stewart shows the following:

In the thirty one years from the Balfour Declaration to the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948, the Jews were only able to increase the proportion of Palestine they owned through purchase from around two to around seven per cent of the total.

Those security and justice needs analysed in the following include a perception of a land right; a perception of victimization; a perception of violence against another;
and a perception of one group acting in contrast to international law.

Perception of victimization (and being the greater victim)

A third basic belief common to both Palestinian and Jewish people is that they have undergone demonisation, deportations, imprisonment and murder as a result of their ethnicity. This leads to the question of what insights does history provide in looking at this issue of persecution and discrimination of ethnic groups? The evidence, sadly would suggest that such persecution is universal. That is in general ethnic groups rise and fall; the exception is for ethnic groups to remain. History shows how new ethnic identities are formed through intermarriage by survivors following ethnic collapse due to war. Table 3 indicates such changes and reformations of ethnic groups. The table indicates the modern day 'survivor' as well as a variety of potential ancient ethnic possibilities.

One attitude is that Jewish people have been persecuted throughout history, another view is that this is a narrow view of group persecution. Instead, group persecution Jewish or otherwise, is evident throughout history. There appears to be a tendency for most social groups not to survive due to ethnic warfare. Instead defeated groups ally with other subjected groups or are absorbed into the dominating group. The strong presence of the Jewish community today might then be seen a sign of an extremely resilient and robust culture. This is in contrast to the absence of living Aztec, Babylonian or Hittite 'people'.

Regardless, in the Western world the Jewish people have been treated as politically expedient scapegoats. Bases for persecution varied from the label 'killers of Christ', to a perceived global Jewish conspiracy. The conventional Jewish view is that Jewish survival depends on their possession of a Jewish land, which can be a place of refuge for those Jews who choose to live outside Israel.

Palestinian resistance was a result of perceived favouritism to the Jewish community by the international community. Those decisions included the Balfour Declaration (November 1917), the San Remo Conference support of the Allied Supreme Council (April 1920), the creation of Transjordan in eastern British Palestine (1921), the League of Nations British Palestine mandate approval (1922), the Peel Partition Plan (July 1937) and the United Nations (General Assembly Partition Plan Resolution 181 (II), November 1947).

In the neighbouring countries of British mandate Palestine there was a gradual increase in 'Arab' autonomy. Meanwhile in British mandate Palestine political, geographic, economic, social and religious control was taken from the non Jewish Arabic speaking ethnic majority by the international community who instead favoured the Jewish community. The result was a predominately Arabic speaking and Muslim cultural region was transformed to a Hebrew speaking and Jewish cultural region in less than three decades.

Great Britain acting on behalf of the 'international community' enforced decisions of land redistribution by force when resistance to these laws was evident. This was especially common during the 1936-39 anti-British and anti-Jewish settlement revolt (Arab revolt, or Arab disturbances). Jewish resistance groups developed in response to offensive and defensive reasons. Those groups included: Hashomer (1909-1920); Haganah, and its special operations group Palmah (1920-48); the Stern Gang and Irgun (led for a time by Menachem Begin, subsequent Prime Minister of Israel 1977-1982).

B. Prerequisites for Conflict Resolution

The requisites for conflict resolution are the attainment of the eight fundamental needs, as discussed in chapter two. The prerequisites for conflict resolution (as a consequence of fundamental needs attainment) include those measures that build hope, build trust and give evidence of non-violence, cooperation and inclusiveness.

3.2 Trust-building Measures and Cooperation

There have been positive developments in relationships between Israeli and Palestinian negotiators since official negotiations began in 1991. The signing of the Declaration of Principles on Palestinian Self-Rule in the Occupied Territories gave evidence (on face value at least) of the willingness of the Israeli and PLO leadership to recognize that each shares common needs of security, control, identity (as well as meaning) and justice. An example of developments in the building of personal relationships included between Yossi Beilin and Abu Ala (Ahmad Quraií).

However, there still exists a stalemate as the Israelis continue to hold the upperhand on security, control, identity and justice needs. This has been on the negotiating table and on the military and economic field. The Israelis continue to operate more effectively than the PLO in bargaining on conflicting issues as they had 'better knowledge – more experience– and better bargaining skills'.

According to the model developed in chapter two, failure to meet all the psychological needs of an individual will exacerbate conflict. As such the Israeli government as the more powerful party may find benefit in ensuring a return to a needs-based conflict resolution system, as it is only through attainment of fundamental needs that peace is found. The Israeli government must recognise that security is only one criterion of the eight needs for peace, as identified in chapter two. Similarly the Palestinian leadership must recognise that justice too is only one criterion of the eight requisites for peace.

Political positions

The most challenging political issues related to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict are:

Borders
Settlements
Jerusalem and
Refugees.

Structural reconciliation requires looking for changes in ideology such as political positions. Such changes will affect the issues and strategies of negotiation with the PLO and with the wider regional community.

The principal 'moderate' parties which have a stake in the current political situation are the Labor, Likud and Fatah (Yassir Arafatís party) political parties. Other more radical political parties to be taken into account include Shas (the part of the Oriental Haredim; the religiously most extreme),Gush Enumin (a significant party amongst the settlers); as well as Palestinian influential groups like Hamas (most influential in Gaza) and Islamic Jihad (most influential in the West Bank).

Shamirís Likud party arose out of Menachem Beginís Herut Party which arose from Jabotinsky's Revisionist Party which advocated an 'iron wall' between 'Eretz Israel' and her Arab neighbours. Ariel Sharon was the first Likud PM not a Revisionist.

The first change is to adopt a truly needs-based conflict resolution process rather than insisting on the force-based approach which is based on positional bargaining and military resolve. This force-based approach has been grounded in an ideology of the 'Arabs' desire to drive the Jews into the sea which is reinforced by terrorist attacks.

1. Security/Borders

a. Territory

Moshe Brawer asserts that the issue of security and borders is 'among the most difficult if not the most intractable problems' of the Arab-Israeli peace process. Present positions on security range from advocating no Palestinian state and a Greater Israel on one extreme (the Israeli extremist/maximist position), to a religious pan-Islamic state or a secular Historic Palestine state on the other (the Palestinian has a minimal redeployment stance of Israeli troops.

The Likud Party historically was opposed to relinquishing even a minute amount of occupied territory. During the 1980s under Shamir the Likud dominated government heavily subsidised houses for settlers.

Moshe Brawer advises against rigid adherence to past bordersóeither 'colonial boundaries' prior to 1948 or the lines established post 1948-49. Brawer argues that both were 'dictated by practical considerations of the time, which were largely mindless of the needs of the local inhabitants'.

At the Taba negotiations, both the Palestinian and Israeli delegations agreed that: 'in accordance with the UN Security Council Resolution 242, the 4 June 1967 lines would be the basis for the borders between Israel and the state of Palestine'.

Some of the sticking points included 'No-Manís Land' (a region just west of Jerusalem, for example Latrun) that has strategic value as it provides a ready access from the coastal plains to an important mountain access to Jerusalem.

b. Security

At the Taba Negotiations, the Palestinian side agreed to allow 'continued operations of early warning stations but subject to certain conditions'. The Palestinian side was 'prepared to accept limitations on the acquisition of arms and be defined as a state with limited arms'. Other issues of concern were air-space control, the timetable for Israeli army withdrawal, the location of emergency deployment locations in the Jordan Valley, cooperation in fighting terror, international crossings and electromagnetic sphere (e.g. telecommunication) sovereignty.

2. Settlements/Colonies

The issue of settlements provokes a similarly wide range of responses, ranging from dismantling all the settlements, to a continued expansion of settlements. One position lying within the continuum includes dismantling some settlements but keeping those annexed within East Jerusalem.

An argument for dismantling settlements includes the need to have a homogenous Palestinian territory. This is in contrast to the greatly divided proposed region (called bantustans by Palestinian apologists). An argument against dismantling settlements includes the political will/fear of the Israeli government, given the sheer number of people that would have to be removed. There is a total of 370 000 settlers in the West Bank, 170 000 settlers in annexed East Jerusalem, and 200 000 within the remainder of the West Bank. The Israeli government fears internal division and conflict between the vocal and active settler (colonialist) movement.

Evidence of potential settler action against the government includes what happened following Baruch Goldsteinís massacre of 30 Palestinians at a Hebron mosque on 25 February 1994. As a consequence the Israeli government considered evacuation of seven Jewish families living in Tel Rumeida, located on a small hill in central Hebron. This small number of very radical Jewish families was guarded by an entire army company. The news of possible evacuation 'stunned' settler leaders. Four prominent rabbis, namely Rabbis Shlomo Goren, Abraham Shapiro, Shaul Yisrael and Moshe Tzvi Neria issued several Halakhic (Jewish religious law) rulings categorically prohibiting evacuation of Jewish settlements in Eretz Israel, given the special significance of Hebron to religious Jews.

Rabbi Goren even called for people to be ready to 'be ready to die rather than allow the destruction of Hebron'. The latter three made an address to the soldiers of the Israeli Army (Israeli Defence Force/IDF), stating that all evacuation laws were 'illegal' and 'must be disobeyed', and plans were made to bring tens of thousands of supporters to obstruct any removal.

Fifteen months later, 15 prominent rabbis including again Rabbis Shapiro and Neria made a similar rabbinical statement. In response, Rabin declared that 'soldiers who did not obey– would be instantly court-martialled'.

Arguments in favour of dismantling settlements include public approval after appropriate political actions from Israeli and PLO leadership. For example, during the withdrawal of settlements in Sinai, surveys of Israeli public opinion suggested 'most voters expressed negative attitudes towards a full withdrawal' of the Sinai Peninsula. However, this 'changed with Anwar Sadatís visit to Jerusalem'. After the peace agreement with Egypt, 'a vast majority supported the withdrawal'.

At the Taba Negotiations Israeli maps identified annexation of 'approximately 80 per cent of the settlers'. The Israeli side maintained that it is 'entitled to contiguity between and among settlements'. The Palestinian side states that 'Palestinian needs take priority over settlements'. The implication at Taba was all settlements will be evacuated in Gaza.

3. Jerusalem

Positions on Jerusalem include partition, where at one end of the spectrum both East and West Jerusalem fall under full Israeli sovereignty, with Palestinian extraterritorial rights and a Palestinian capital in a Jerusalem suburb (Abu Dis); and at the other end of the spectrum full Palestinian sovereignty over East Jerusalem with Israeli extraterritorial rights in the Old City.

Moderate arguments against Israeli control of East Jerusalem (including the Old City) include the PLO leadership, who argue that the Palestinian people have already given major concessions to Israelis, given that 60 % of Jerusalem was Palestinian owned prior to 1948. Arguments for Israeli control of East Jerusalem (including the Old City) include mistrust of a Palestinian controlled Jerusalem.Radical arguments against Israeli control of any part of Jerusalem include Islamists who argue that Israel and Jerusalem (as the third holiest city to Islam) must be controlled by Muslims. Similarly, arguments by Jewish fundamentalists require the inclusion of Eretz Israel, and Jerusalem, 'the city of David', to be under Jewish control.

Evidence against partition includes Diskin's analysis of voters attitudes to the 1996 elections. Diskin recorded that most Israelis thought Peres was better qualified for prime minister than Binyamin Netanyahu. Nevertheless, it seems that basic suspicion of Israelís Arab partners to the peace process and Netanyahu's slogan 'Peres will divide Jerusalem' may have resulted in Peresí loss of the 1996 election.

Arguments for shared sovereignty of Jerusalem demonstrate a more optimistic approach to the dilemma. The most well-known of these shared sovereignty plans was made by Yossi Beilin and Abu Mazen, where Abu Dis would be renamed Al-Quds, while leaving full control of Jerusalem to Israel.

At the Taba negotiations 21 to 27 January 2001, both sides accepted in 'principle the Clinton suggestion of having a Palestinian sovereignty over Arab neighbourhoods and an Israeli sovereignty over Jewish neighbourhoods'. Both sides accepted the idea of an 'open city'. The sticking points included Israeli sovereignty over Ma'ale Adumin and Givat Ze'ev; Jabal Abu Ghunaym (Har Homa), Ras al-Amud and Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount. In April 1995 Rabin supported a further 7000 new homes in East Jerusalem and announced plans to 'confiscate 130 acres of Arab lands to facilitate the project'. The UN Security Council voted 14 to 1 to rescind this new housing construction. However, the one vote in the negative was the US, which used its veto to block the resolution. This was the thirtieth time since 1972 that the USA had used its veto to prevent censure of Israel.

4. Refugees

According to Geoffrey Watson, international law with respect to Palestinian refugees 'does not provide a decisive answer to the question, although the rights and principles discussed' potentially provide the framework for a solution to the conflict and the situation of the refugees. Positions on refugees range from a Palestinian right to return to Israel and to repossess property there, up to no general right to return to Israel or repossession, but a right of compensation and a right of Palestinian immigration to a Palestinian entity.

The most frequently articulated Palestinian position is for the right of return for refugees and their repossession of lost/stolen property. The Head of the Palestinian General Delegation to Australia, Ali Kazak, holds that a just and lasting solution to the refugee question must firstly be accepted by the Palestinian refugees. This solution requires the Israeli government to accept the principle of a right of return and a generous compensation for property loss and emotional suffering. This principle, Mr Kazak argues, is based on international law and repeated UN resolutions including UN General Assembly Resolution 194 (1948). Mr Kazak suggests that if an acceptable settlement was determined the overwhelming majority of Palestinians would remain in their present location.

Opposition to a 'right of return' include Geoffrey Watson, a leading scholar on international law in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, who regards this right as unacceptable due to the 'unmanageable social unrest or worse,' a situation it would undoubtedly bring.

A former Israeli Prime Minister, Yitzhak Shamir, made his view clear on the right of return, arguing that 'the term 'right of return' is an empty phrase that is absolutely meaningless – it will never happen in any way shape or form. There is only a Jewish 'right of return''.

At Taba negotiations both sides suggested as a basis:

That the parties should agree that a just settlement of the refugee problem in accordance with UN Security Council Resolution 242 must lead to the implementation of UN General Assembly Resolution 194.

This is a momentous decision given UN General Assembly Resolution 194 of 1948 that:

The refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so – and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for the loss of and damage to property.

In sum, the Israeli side from the Taba negotiations suggested a three-track fifteen year absorption program with priority given to the Palestinian refugee population in Lebanon. The first track would have seen the absorption in Israel of anything from
25 000 to 40 000 in the first five years. The second track would include transfer to territory within Palestinian sovereignty and the third track would include family reunification.

5. Water

Positions on water range from complete Israeli control of water resources in the Occupied Territories, to Palestinian control of the water. Arguments for Israeli control of water are based on Israelís mistrust of Palestinian administration of their water resources. Water in Israel is a matter of 'national security' and, as such, Israel has already strict limits in place on water bores in the West Bank which could interfere with normal flows of groundwater to coastal plain within Israel proper. No mention of water was made in the Taba Negotiations, given its absence in the Maratinos 'nonpaper' on the Taba Negotiations report.

b. Religious interpretations

Structural reconciliation seeks to encourage more tolerant outlooks in religious positions. Improvements in ecumenical and interfaith dialogue are a basis for such inclusiveness. Such religious pluralism should be encouraged with the exception that religions which show intolerance or call on the villification of another on the basis of their religious beliefs cannot be tolerated. Kurt Lewin, in coming to terms with the horrors of Nazism, made issue of the need for the new world to develop tolerance of difference; however, Lewin called for 'intolerance of intolerance'.

There is concern at the increase in support of the Hamas political party. Part of this support is due to the significant social welfare arm provided by Hamas, especially to people in Gaza. Israeli and Palestinian authorities need to consider countering the popularity of Hamas by compassion in contrast to brute force. Peace as demonstrated by fundamental needs theory is developed by loving the other more, providing security and justice for the other and developing the additional five fundamental human needs. Lessons may be learnt from the ancient philosophy of Jesus Christ who argued the advantages of being known for love rather than aggression.

The Israeli government's immediate reaction to the 25 February atrocity by Goldstein in Hebron was to outlaw Kach and Kahana Chai Parties such as these groups continued to preach anti-Arab violence and praised the actions of Goldstein. President Ezer Weizman demanded rabbinical ruling be cancelled and stated his intention to try the rabbis for incitement.

c. Educational positions

Structural reconciliation requires change within the educational systems, in particular with respect to history textbooks of the Israeli government and Palestinian Authority. The teaching of history and the use of history textbooks serve as prime instruments for 'nation-building' and 'socializing young people to societyís dominant values'. As such history teaching shapes 'the worldview of the young generations,' which, as discussed in chapter 2, are significant in determining an individualís needs and fears.

In 1907, Itzhak Epstein documented the presence of prejudice in Jewish history teaching, such as implying Arabs were inferior, lazy and ignoring their historical connection to the land. Epstein urged schools to eliminate prejudices, avoid 'the narrow-minded and mean-spirited nationalism which sees nothing but itself,' and seek 'to understand the countryís indigenous people'.

Elie Podeh has produced one of the most significant books on the Palestinian-Israeli (and the wider Arab-Israeli conflict). Podeh talks of the 'battle of the textbooks' that leave 'no physical damages', but which have lasting psychological impact'.

Podeh identifies three main stages in the evolution of the attitude of the education system towards the Arab-Israeli conflict as 'childhood (1920-1967), adolescence (1967-mid 1980s), and adulthood (since then). The first stage entails 'implanting Zionist values', denying the Arab rights to Eretz Israel. The second stage is less overtly prejudicial, however this period was still categorized by 'implicit negative messages,' which may be more 'dangerous than the overt since the former unconsciously affect the student and may last longer'.

The third stage occurred as a consequence of the Ministry of Education's guidelines for a new program, titled 'Education for Jewish-Arab Coexistence.' This period has a 'fairly balanced presentation of the image of the Arab and the Arab-Israeli conflict. Although the prevalence of negative images of the Arab in textbooks is certainly declining, it is not yet dead.

Podeh notes that unfortunately, there are almost no academic studies of Arab school textbook. He does, however, mention several 'politically motivated' studies that were published by private institutions for example work by Wurmser.

d. Economic conditions

Structural reconciliation seeks to overcome inequality in economic conditions. Firstly, this requires greater economic cooperation as integral aspect of peace and security in the region. Proponents of greater economic cooperation include Shimon Peres, Abu Ala (Ahmad Qurai) and Abu Mazen (Mahmoud Abbas). The Oslo Accords set up a framework for such greater cooperation.

Within the Oslo Accords greater forms of cooperation are listed in the areas of trade, customs duties, investment, banking and loans. However, there is a need to ensure these are mutually beneficial to the Palestinian and Israeli people. Given the sheer poverty, malnutrition, and psychological misery of Palestinian people, greater concessions would be required from the Israeli government, the economically stronger neighbour.

Conclusion

This chapter has outlined practical approaches to resolving the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. This chapter firstly, identified five of the fundamental needs of Palestinian and Israeli Jewish people. It identified issues related to the needs for meaning, identity, control, security and justice. Secondly, it identified the progress of trust-building measures between Palestinian and Israeli Jewish people. This section identified agreed and contentious political positions on the issues of security, settlements, Jerusalem, refugees and water. Other positions identified included religious, educational and economic. These positions in the short term present a pessimistic picture.

Whilst a watershed occurred with the signing of the Declaration of Principles in September 1993, and initial Israeli withdrawals appealed promising old habits have remained. There continues to be mistrust by the mainstream Israeli Leadership towards the Palestinian Authority as evidenced by the failure to complete their withdrawal schedule. Events since the second Intifada have created such deprivation for the Palestinians and fear for the Israelis that undoubtedly a whole generation has been scarred. Such a result means the psychological obstacles of despair, mistrust, antipathy, domination, exclusive worldviews and violence are greater now than any time in the last decade. The process of building psychological ëbridgesí of hope, trust, empathy, cooperation, inclusive worldviews and non-violence remain a challenge, which look to be further compounded by the present escalation of the United States and her alliance in the Middle East. Empathy for oneís enemy, in the main, is still a dream.


Chapter 4 – Conclusions

How long before you order your men to stop pursuing their brothers?
(2 Samuel 24:26)

The Coming of Peace and Future Concerns

Despite the present pessimistic situation in the Middle East, in the long term there is but one choice for this region: peace. There are too many lives at stake for there to be an alternative. However, in the short term the madness that is the Middle East will continue until each party separates their value needs, those traditional cultural values, from their fundamental needs, those universally present needs.

Research implications

This Master of Arts thesis has a number of implications and these are:

(1) Evidence is given for the value in continuing research into needs-based approaches to conflict resolution. Such continued developments are required at all levels within multi-track diplomacy. Especially a renewed effort is required to encourage research of track 1 (government to government) diplomacy (Hypothesis 1 and 2).

(2) The implications of the model for peace as developed in chapter two indicates that both Palestinian and Israeli perceptions of peace are fundamentally flawed. As the general model for peace shows, there are eight determinants of peace and ëjusticeí, as important as it is, is just one criterion for peace. Similarly, Israeli rhetoric for ëpeace with securityí is equally limited as it only addresses one dimension of peace. As such the Israeli government, like the Palestinian Authority needs to appreciate and incorporate this multi-dimensional approach of peace within its negotiation framework. Consequently, any such framework should foster the development of the eight criteria for peaceócontrol, security, justice, rational stimulation, esteem, meaning, identity and emotional stimulation (Hypothesis 3 and 4).

(3) There is a serious gap theory and practice of the Israeli government on the issue of settlements in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. The Declaration of Principles signed in 1993 provided a sound cooperation based approach to resolving a need-based resolution. However, good-faith of the Israeli Government is questioned given the doubling of settler numbers in territory conquered from Jordan since 1967. Blame for this lies with both successive Labor and Likud led governments (Hypothesis 4d).

4) Renewed efforts are required for reform and further dialogue and exchange within religious groups (Hypothesis 5c).

(5) Renewed efforts are required to ensure Israeli and Palestinian state school text books and religious centres of teaching encourage peace, coexistence and affirm the positives and acknowledge the negatives of each national liberation struggle (Hypothesis 5a,b,c).

(6) There is a need to encourage legal reform to ensure fairness and equity of individuals regardless of ethnicity (Hypothesis 5d).

(7) There is a need to encourage dramatic economic improvement to the Palestinian economy given the prolonged misery of the Palestinian people. This would keep the vision that was Oslo, of a Marshall-like Plan, for the West Bank and the Gaza Strip (Hypothesis 5e).

(8) Lastly, to the Palestinian and Jewish groups in the diaspora there needs to be improvements in dialogue. For example bodies such as the Australian Palestinian General Delegation (APGD), the Australian Board of Jewish Deputies, and the Jewish Zionist Council need to:

(a) appreciate the desired need for justice of the Palestinian refugees.
(b) appreciate the desired need of security of Israeli Jews.
(c) ensure up-to-date access to reliable information on the progress that has been
made towards peace by Israelis and the PLO. Specific examples include:
(i) the deletions of those inflammatory articles within the 1967 Palestinian
National Covenant that called for a violent destruction of Israel.
(ii) the impact of continued settlement expansion within area conquered by
Israeli in 1967 (Hypothesis 5a-c).


Future Research

Further research will be required to give empirical verification for the general method of conflict resolution as proposed in chapter two.

Research will be required to identify further ways to attain fundamental human needs in terms of identity, meaning, control, security and justice. In relation to the need for identity, for the Jewish community, some questions useful to investigate include:

Was there a legal connection between the 1947 General Assemblyís partition plan and the establishment in 15 May 1948 of a Jewish State?
Could there be no ethnic discrimination within the proposed Jewish State given half the population was Palestinian Arab?
Why was the process of democracy not used, and a plebiscite conducted to determine the fate of Palestine in 1947?
For how long can one support the idea of a Jewish State given one fifth of the inhabitants of Israel (within the 1948 borders) are ethnic Palestinian, and 40% of the inhabitants within ëGreater Israelí are ethnic Palestinian?
What are the consequences to the ëJewishí state if the West Bank and Gaza Strip are annexed by Israel?
What are the similarities/differences between the settlement expansion of Australia, New Zealand, the United States, Canada and South Africa with Israel?
For how long can the West Bank and Gaza Strip be occupied?
What is the threat of another Shoah/Holocaust?
Is anti-Semitism as a form of cultural prejudice/racism? If so what impact will education have on combating such racism?

Similarly, questions of Jewish and Palestinians needs for security, control and justice could include:
How can guarantees be set-up that ensure the Israeli Jewish community feels secure in the region?
How can a social system be created which does not result in a mass exodus of Jewish people from the region if/when(?) a Palestinian state is created? (Remembering the consequence to Europeans following independence in Kenya, Zimbabwe and what is potentially happening in South Africa).
What is a just response to the theft of residential, farming or industrial property stolen fifty years ago?
What changes need to be made within the various Palestinian religious, political, economic and legal systems to ensure greater freedom and control?

Conclusion

This thesis has given an overview of conflict resolution theory, proposed a general method of conflict resolution and provided practical approaches to resolving the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. The primary thesis here advanced was that violent inter-group conflict, such as the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, will continue until fundamental psychological and structural obstacles are addressed. It was determined that the primary psychological obstacles require addressing the fundamental needs and fears of each party at the individual level. Those fundamental psychological needs included four 'rational' needs: control, security, justice and rational stimulation; and four 'emotional' needs: emotional stimulation, esteem, meaning and identity. It was determined that the prerequisites for attainment of these fundamental needs were a hope/ belief in the possibility of conflict resolution, the ability to empathise with 'the other,' the desire to develop more inclusive worldviews and the action of building trust, as evidence by cooperation and nonviolence. Similarly, it was argued that the prerequisites for societal change require implementation within the structures of society those factors which encourage fundamental need development. These changes are required within the social, political, religious, legal and economic systems.

---

Acknowledgements

I wish to thank all those who have given assistance and support as I have researched and written this thesis. My supervisor Dr. Paul White deserves considerable thanks for his encouragement, guidance and support. To Wendy Lambourne who introduced me to peace theory and to all the staff at the Centre of Peace and Conflict Studies, University of Sydney, who share in the passion for peace.

I wish to thank staff members of the University of Sydney who have offered guidance and support, including: Dr. Leanne Piggott, Department of Government and International Relations; Dr. Claire Wilson, Psychology Department; and Dr. Alan Craddock, Psychology Department.

To Mr Ali Kazak, Head of the General Palestinian Delegation for Australia, Keysar Trad, Spokesperson for the Mufti of Australia, Robert Klarnet, Public Affairs, NSW Jewish Board of Deputies and Ron Wiser, President of the Zionist Federation of Australia, I offer thanks for their critique of my thesis. To Ben from the Israeli embassy in Australia, I offer thanks for his assistance. To Rachel Milner from the Program of International Conflict Analysis and Resolution, Harvard University, I offer thanks for her help in obtaining a response from Professor Herbert C. Kelman, a man who has encouraged empathy of the other for so long in the Middle East.

Special thanks to Matt Fenwick for his encouragement and his patience in his proof reading and editing.

Thanks to my fellow Masters students in Peace and Conflict Studies, especially to Vicky Morgan and Louise Southalan for their help.

Thanks go, of course to my family, to my two sisters, my mum and dad, whose love, life and support have shaped in so many ways who I am. This thesis is a tribute to their example.

Finally, in writing this thesis, I acknowledge the people of Neve Shalom/Wahat al-Salam, Father Bruno Hassard, Father Elias Chacour, Gill Dye, Reverend Stephen Sizer and the Reverend John Hirt, truly people whose vision and life will help bring about a day when the people of this troubled region will see each other as brother, sister, neighbour and friend.

copyright © www.sunbourg.com