Resolving the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: Perspectives on the ...

that religion can be a positive force for reconciliation, both because it can make salient the focus on commonly held ethical values and also because it can shift the focus of the argument to a perspective of universal hope.

These chapters reveal a collective consensus by these authors across the various disciplines with their different perspectives:

1. We cannot ignore the human element. As many of the authors have stressed, this is not simply a conflict about political issues, or even about abstract concepts like justice or safety. This is a conflict about real people driven by real emotions and feelings, such as fear, hatred, perceptions of injustice, and prejudice. It is also a conflict that exacts an enormous human toll––psychological, physical, and economical. It is important to frame our discussions in a way that recognizes the human element on both sides. Some of the essays in this volume, for example, stress how involving Arab-Israelis (who are politically marginalized but have a clear connection with the people on both sides of the conflict) in the negotiation process can be an important step to achieving that goal.

2. People must believe that there is a light at the end of the tunnel. More and more often, people regard the conflict as intractable, and terms such as conflict management (instead of conflict resolution) become more commonplace. If people do not see a clear, achievable end to the conflict, frustration and helplessness take over, and the willingness to work toward resolution is diminished. As Dennis Fox wrote, many Palestinians may have shied away from the conference because they are frustrated about efforts that lead to nowhere and do not recognize their plight. And as Herbert Kelman suggested, there has to be a clear vision of our goals, even as we decide on our pathways. A lack of vision or direction only leads to frustration and emboldens the extremists by giving credence to their claim that an end to the conflict can only be achieved when one side finally obliterates the other.

3. We have to motivate the Israelis to actively work toward a solution and get out of their complacency. Palestinians live a daily life under the duress of a state of occupation and are deprived of many of the rights afforded to citizens of most of the free world. This alone is motivation to seek out a solution, one way or another, to the conflict. On the other hand, Israelis only endure comparatively minor hassles, and their human toll is much smaller than that of the Palestinians. This asymmetrical situation makes it less urgent for Israelis to find a solution to the conflict. The brilliant discussion by Professor Naomi Chazan captures this situation aptly: Israelis do not realize (or do not want to think about) the idea that the current situation is untenable and that failure to achieve a solution in the near future will lead to the end of the state of Israel as we know it. While most Israelis live now without day-to-day fear and preoccupation about the conflict, as frustration mounts, Israel would be under pressure to take even more drastic actions against the Palestinians. Many of the discussions during the conference revealed that public opinion in the world––even the Jewish public opinion in the United States––is shifting and support for Israel is eroding. It is becoming increasingly difficult to rationally defend Israel against accusations of racism and apartheid, as well as advocate a two-state solution. It is only a matter of time before Israel becomes more isolated, theocratic, and militaristic. Professor Chazan even ventured that Israelis have to be “frightened” into realizing that a path that does not lead to peace only leads to another theocratic Middle East state instead of our vision of a Western democracy.