Mapping Peaces: Ethos of Peace and Conflict in Israel/Palestine

Mapping Peaces: Ethos of Peace and Conflict in Israel/Palestine

By Taly Harel-Marian and Peter T. Coleman

Last fall, while planning a longitudinal study on attitudes toward peace and conflict in the Middle East, a colleague of mine asked the hard question. Larry Leibovitch, Dean of Mathematics and Natural Science at Queens College, asked, “Do you have any confidence that if you ask people there what is important to them, they will know and be able to tell you.” “Well, no,” I responded, “But that’s all we got.” Larry’s response was, “Then you need to meet Howard Moscowitz.” And so began our collaborative journey with Howard and his remarkable team working on Mind Genomics.

In this newly-launchedstudy we seek to understand the drivers for, and the constraints against, destructive conflict and sustainable peace within Israel and the Occupied Territories. Specifically, we wish to learn what induces individuals’ investments in conflict and peace, what detracts from their interest, and what factors have no impact on their interest. Employing the new methodology Rule Development Experimentation (RDE), we hope to identify unique clusters of motives for peace and conflict in both Israeli Jewish and Palestinian communities in the Middle East. We expect that examining motives with this new methodology will allow for a more accurate and robust understanding of the relationships between such motives, and inform peacemaking, peacekeeping and peace building policies in the region.

Mindsets for Ending Conflict

According to Daniel Bar-Tal, in trying to cope with protracted conflict, societies develop societal-psychological repertoires. Eventually, these repertoires become a prism through which society members construe their reality, collect new information, interpret their experiences and then make decisions about their course of action. This becomes hegemonic, rigid and resistant to change and ends up serving as a major fueling factor to the continuation of the conflict. On the other hand, it also provides a clear picture of the conflict, its goals, its conditions, requirements, images of the own group and of the rival. Moreover, although it helps to reduce uncertainty andincreases predictability, it creates a biased interpretation of reality and can impede reconciliation.

Daniel Bar-Tal proposes a set of elements that serve as barriers when individuals are considering new information and perspectivesregarding conflict. Those societal beliefs include

1. Beliefs about justness of own goals that indicate their crucial importance and provide their explanations and rationales

2. Beliefs about security which refer to the importance of personal safety and national survival, and outline the conditions for their achievement;

3. Beliefs of positive collective self-image which concern the ethnocentric tendency to attribute positive traits, values and behavior to own society;

4. Beliefs of own victimization which concern with self-presentation as a victim, especially in the context of the intractable conflict;

5. Societal beliefs of delegitimizing the opponent which deny the adversary’s humanity;

6. Societal beliefs of patriotism that generate attachment to the country and society, by propagating loyalty, love, care and sacrifice

7. Societal beliefs of unity that refer to the importance of ignoring internal conflicts and disagreements during intractable conflict in order to unite the forces in the face of the external threat.

We hypothesize that each component will have different levels of impact on individuals’ views of the conflict. However, we expect that the effects of each component will reveal clusters of individuals motivated by similar concerns that distinguish them from other clusters. These group differences hold the potential for informing policy makers in a radically new and more accurate manner than previous measures.

However, this is only half of the equation.

Mindsets for Promoting Peace

People too often assume that if we understand a problem well enough, we will understand its solution. Peace is simply the opposite of war, right? Researchers have found this to be largely incorrect. In fact, it appears that there is a big difference between situations that lack destructive conflict and situations in which there are peaceful relations. In fact, there is evidence from the study of attitudes that positive and negative evaluative processes at times operate independently, and that positive and negative attributions can function differently as well. In other words, conflict and peace are not opposites but orthogonal dynamics associated with distinct conditions and parameters. Other approaches, such as that taken by social dominance theory, suggest that societies have countervailing myths or ideologies that operate in tension – almost as a force-field, to determine group behavioral tendencies. In other words, is there an ethos of peace? And would assessing it require its own scale? If so, how might the two relate? Might they be orthogonal? This study seeks to explore and unpack both mindsets for ending conflict and for promoting peace.

Using Rule Developing Experimentation (RDE)

RDE is a unique online tool which allows for participants’ segmentation into groups. It is intended to identify segments of the population that naturally show similar motivations on a specific issue. As opposed to traditional surveys and questionnaires, RDE is designed to elicit intuitive answers from which it is possible to find patterns of reactions. In this case, we expect RDE will reveal that some people (both Israelis and Palestinians) generally can be segmented into a group that is more open and interested in specific elements and different groups that react more negatively to a particular set of facts.

In practical terms, RDE utilizes vignettes that present elements of either conflict or peace. The vignettes are short and easy-to-read paragraphs, comprised usually of three to four short statements. When we present these vignettes, we are able to get people’s reactions and understand what parts of the vignettes drive interest. From these initial reactions, it is possible to identify patterns and clusters.

For example, regarding the theme of effective oversight and conflict resolution in the Israeli-Palestinian context, some of the vignettes include statements such as “The UN, NGOs and the International Community will help us achieve lasting peace” and “Peace will last when the international courts are seen as fair to all members of our society”. With RDE, we are able to identify the particulars of a general idea, such as the role of international actors and organizations, which are more appealing to both sides of the conflict.

In this project, we will be asking Palestinian and Israeli participants to respond to two questions regarding specific believes associated to conflict and peace:

1. How likely is this scenario make you want to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict through negotiations? Or how likely is this scenario make you wish to support sustainable peace?

2. How do you feel when you read these messages?

This is the first time that RDE methodology is being used in the realm of peace and conflict. We expect it to produce fresh and unique insights on the perceptions of war and peace, contribute to our understanding of these issues, and ultimately inform policy.