Psychological aspects of conflict and resolution

Questions Concerning the Psychology of Conflict and Conflict Resolution

The conflict between Israel and the surrounding Arab neighbors with which it has frequently come to blows is precipitated on a host of territorial, historical, ethnic and political terms. However, with the significant gains made to the peace process in Israel's first regional accord, signed with Egypt in 1979, it gained a powerful partner in undoing the psychological implications overarching the specificities of Middle-East conflict. In the Class 1 lectures on psychological barriers to conflict resolution, we are made more fully aware of the impact which impression building can have on the psychological makeup of a conflict. With Egyptian PM Anwar Sadat beginning the process of opening up toward peace by making a 1977 visit to Israel, our lectures denote that no major compromises or resolutions were achieved but that the ball then began to roll much faster toward a formal recognition of peace. To my view, this would be because an impression of greater trust and recognition of a willingness to proceed to compromise had been built amongst the Israeli's on the basis of Sadat's words and actions. Beyond the psychological effect of impression building, Sadat's words would explicitly recognize that there was a commonality of interest in their peaceable relations. He would contend that "there remains another wall. This wall constitutes a psychological barrier between us, a barrier of suspicion, a barrier of rejection, a barrier of fear, of deception.... This psychological barrier [constitutes] 70 percent of the whole problem." (Class 1, 5) Noting the emotional realities of a relationship traumatized by mutual abuses, Sadat's statement would help to resolve my understanding of the Mid-East conflict. This is true insofar as the psychological barriers both of impression construction and emotional entrenchment, while not undone by a peace treaty that would ultimately lead to Sadat's assassination at the hands of anti-Israeli extremist, would produce a lasting peace between the nations. This presents a template for how to psychologically initiate the long process of bringing peace between Israel and other neighboring states.

The discussion on the psychological aspects of conflict illustrate that though interstate conflicts will display a wide variance of case histories and implications, that there nonetheless remain certain constants defining the nature of conflict on the whole. This is particularly the case with intractable conflicts, which earn this definition for the extent to which these common characteristics make their aims seem so elusive. First, it is sensible to describe those conflict which are tractable in nature, so described because their aims and the prospects of resolution do become more achievable. Again, here, we denote the commonality stringing together a diverse set of possible conflicts. A tractable conflict often will be one based on political disagreement or diplomatic breakdown in spite of mutual aims. Also a commonality of the tractable conflict is the somewhat shared political orientation of participants. Where democratically oriented nations our concerned, the predicating interest in retaining peace even in the face of minor or major diplomatic disagreements means that conflict resolution will be attended in the halls of international forum rather than on the battlefields. This is not always possible of course, and as history demonstrates, ethnicity is a major factor which often draws deeply ingrained and inborn differences betwixt diverging parties. As our lectures denote, "the sheer passion expended in pursuing ethnic conflict calls out for an explanation that does justice to the realm of feelings. It is necessary to account, not merely for ambition, but for antipathy. A bloody phenomenon cannot be explained by a bloodless theory. (Horowitz, 1985, p. 140)" (Class 7-8, 2) Another feature of the intractable conflict that is implicated by ethnicity, but can also take on forms of religious dedication, historically intertwined territorial differences or resistance to foreign occupation, is that of emotional regulation. The gap in interests denotes that one party or both have entered into the conflict with intent to influence processes of resolution by shaping emotional responses of conflicting parties.

3. Big Question - 50%- 2 pages

The attempt at brokering peace in the Middle East has long been the province of the United States. As Israel's strongest international supporter and a nation declaredly invested in encouraging the improvement of democracy throughout the global community, the United States has long taken an interest in the opportunities provided it in war and peace through its relationship with Israel. As an inhabitant of the Palestinian land which has since 1967 been occupied by Israeli foreigners, I am deeply and emotionally supportive of peace. My future, the future of my countrymen and our chance for independence all hinge fully upon this support. It is why I view with concern and suspicious any of the offers for peace which are on the closer horizon now that we have moved beyond the destructive extremism of the George W. Bush/Ariel Sharon compact. While it is clear that the bitter tenor of recent generations has changed, we must view with careful scrutiny the shifting implications and subtle, sophisticated inconsistencies which are always a feature of American and Israeli rhetoric. So it is with Benjamin Netanyahu, an Israeli leader whom I believe sincerely desires to achieve piece. He does speak with eloquent and carefully chosen sentiment on the subject, when he claims to "appeal tonight to the leaders of the Arab countries and say: Let us meet. Let us talk about peace. Let us make peace. I am willing to meet at any time, at any place, in Damascus, in Riyadh, in Beirut, and in Jerusalem as well" (Netanyahu, 2) This is a statement couched in other flowing terms about unconditional terms of diplomacy and reference to a desire for 'good neighborly' relations. I believe the Israeli's desire this, but it is a falsehood that Netanyahu claims an unconditional willingness to proceed thusly. Bobbing above the surface of his poetic pleas, Netanyahu strikes multiple conditions relating to the determination of nuclear rights in other nations and declarations concerning the rightness of its current borders. Netananyahu knows that I and my countrymen can tolerate no such policy which does not produce the outcome of a Palestinian state. There is thus little that can be said to the end of promoting good neighborly love without fair concession. But he is unrepentant in his explicit reference to Gaza and the West Bank, which he claims are not the primary issue of concern. He follows the call for peace with the statement that "even with our eyes on the horizon, we must have our feet on the ground, firmly rooted in truth. The simple truth is that the root of the conflict has been and remains - the refusal to recognize the right of the Jewish People to its own state in its historical homeland." (Netanyahu, 3) This, he claims, and not the plight of the aggrieved Palestinians, is at center of the conflict. Sadly, calls for peace thus become lost in clear political agendas. So is this true with the United States. President Obama clearly strikes a more conciliatory tone than his predecessor, the warmongering Mr. Bush. But this may in some manner be a trick of psychological impression. Obama, in language yet more flowery, asks for peace. He denotes in a speech in Cairo, "I consider it part of my responsibility as president of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear. But that same principle must apply to Muslim perceptions of America. Just as Muslims do not fit a crude stereotype, America is not the crude stereotype of a self-interested empire. The United States has been one of the greatest sources of progress that the world has ever known" (Obama, 2) This latter point of view, however, seems the more dominant as his speech proceeds to outline America's intent to continue to manage impressions at its own will. For instance, he denotes that "the situation in Afghanistan demonstrates America's goals, and our need to work together. Over seven years ago, the United States pursued al-Qaeda and the Taliban with broad international support. We did not go by choice, we went because of necessity." (Obama, 3) Certainly, in my community, this imperative is not seen with the same certainty. I and my family are not terrorists. We are average Palestinian citizens attempting to live in political, religious and economic freedom. In our recognition of Israel and America as functioning to obstruct these freedoms, we view any such expression as ethnocentric in nature and failing truly to consider the political statements which are made by acts of terrorism. We do not support these, and consider the acts such as those on 9/11 to be cowardly and inconsistent with the word of Allah, but we do consider it important for the achievement of real peace that the political implications of such actions be truly considered.