CHAPTER FOUR
Peace Ecology
SOCIETIES THAT HAVE ENDURED CONFLICT FOR GENERATIONS are understandably highly suspicious of their former enemies; this suspicion comes out in hostility and aggression. The compromises and cooperation that are so necessary to the peace process are often perceived as betrayals. Leaders and negotiators treat their peace partners as enemies and are overcautious of working together toward reconciliation. People even feel comfortable with the status quo of suspicion, because there is always someone else to blame for one’s predicament.
For real peace to thrive, a fundamental change in the peacemaking environment must occur. This transformation can be derived from those inside the conflict area and from those beyond the regional boundaries. An integrative strategy can be planned and implemented to ensure that peace is not created in a vacuum; parallel to conflict resolution, both sides must move from a culture of war to a culture of peace—in other words, societies must create and nourish a peace ecology.
Outside influence is of great strategic importance; by infiltrating the conflict region during the process of resolution, the international community can demonstrate its support of the post-conflict societies. Although conflict societies may feel a dangerous comfort in insularity, there is a simultaneous, contrary desire to be released from a fortress mentality—the populations should be open and should allow peaceful and cooperative values to penetrate. Peacemaking itself is not a detached value; it can be supplemented by important humanitarian values that influence the identities of post-conflict countries and develop a regional identity as part of the reconciliation process.
In any bilateral negotiation, regional partners can convene and declare a long-term vision of the region, based on common values of peace, humaneness, and cooperation. By definition, conflicts create ghettos with almost impenetrable walls. Countries in conflict reflect each other’s suspicion and antagonism. During Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, for example, our common language of victimization surfaced; looking at the enemy was like looking in the mirror.
Common Values Are Key
The key to creating a peace ecology lies in the value system that can be introduced into the core conflict area. Paradoxically, it is easier to define a common vision among many players than between two negotiating partners terrified of concessions. An atmosphere of peace can help coax negotiators toward common goals. The process must not be bogged down by details that lead to negative interpretations of the process by disillusioned constituencies.
The core conflict area can be greatly influenced by positive values common to the greater region. The process can be further stimulated by regional cooperation in areas such as water sharing, dealing with refugees, economic development, and environmental conservation. Such social development can help the peacemaking effort by facilitating the necessary free movement of goods, people, and—no less important—ideas. To create a peace ecology, regional cooperation can take both tangible and psychological forms.
A peace ecology can reframe compromises as advancements rather than concessions; in this light, negotiations have the potential to become a win-win situation instead of a hierarchical or competitive debate. Most importantly, a peace ecology places coexistence on the basis of equality as a core value that eventually becomes organic within a society.
The development of a peace ecology is fraught with obstacles, but it is essential. To begin, the cancerous atmosphere of conflict and war must be uprooted. In conflict situations the enemy is dehumanized, equal rights are relinquished, and it is difficult to let go of the perception of the former enemy as the culprit. In a conflict narrative each side tries to monopolize suffering, defending its own virtue and portraying the Other as the aggressor. Often, all sides approach the negotiating table with the attitude that they—and they alone—deserve justice, security, and retribution.
In a peace ecology narrative, all sides do deserve these things. Modern negotiations must stem from fair, mutual perceptions of the Other and must acknowledge that both sides equally seek and deserve justice, security, and prosperity. As long as either side dehumanizes the other or maintains perceptions of inequality, the conflict will never be resolved.
The Role of the Media
The media exerts massive influence on societies’ perceptions and values. Media coverage of events can make or break positive public opinion about peace and cannot be fully orchestrated by decision makers (although those engaged in peacemaking can systematically influence media content). News items, documentaries, and films that illustrate the predicaments of the Other are vital to peace ecology. Bad news takes care of itself; it is the often-ignored stories of cross-border cooperation and suffering on both sides that the media should seek to amplify.
In June 1997 the Peres Center for Peace, which I founded together with my mentor Shimon Peres, decided to produce a joint Palestinian-Israeli film. We easily found a common theme: stress. The tension that is cultivated during conflict takes its toll on societies on both sides of the divide; it is a common trait, even if it is manifested differently by the two societies. Discussions with the producers, Duki Dror and Rashid Masharawi, and the scriptwriters reminded me of some of the toughest negotiations I had experienced with PLO representatives in Oslo. Both Israeli and Palestinian were trying to outdo each other in their portrayal of the depth of their society’s anxieties. Each side wanted to portray itself as the greatest victim, and they downplayed the commonalities of suffering out of fear that their audiences would react negatively to the suggestion that both sides were equally stressed.
After long nights of deliberations, we finally achieved a joint production of two short films. The Palestinian film was mostly silent, depicting jaded faces waiting in humiliation at the blockades between Gaza and Israel. In contrast, the Israeli film was filled with the almost hysterical chatter of a taxi driver to his clients on a day when a suicide bomber killed several people in Jerusalem. Yet a commonality existed between the films—it was clear that anxiety and tension had overcome the people of the region.
The joint production, Stress, was broadcast on both Israeli and Palestinian television as well as on international media. Many more such productions might have been created had a film fund or a peace television station been established. But all such efforts are so far in vain. Television, the most critical medium, has not been even partially positioned as a channel for peace.
Regional Influence
The region surrounding the core conflict area can support conflict societies by participating in peacemaking efforts parallel to the central resolution process. Since the end of the Cold War and the consequent cessation of a bipolar global environment, geopolitical unions based on socioeconomic cooperation have been established and continue to develop. In the case of Europe after World War II, countries reconciled into an integrated system, the European Community, which has since been replaced by the European Union. In 1967, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) was formed to promote political and economic cooperation and regional stability. In the Middle East, however, the 1991 Madrid Conference launched a regional track to parallel bilateral negotiations but failed to adequately emphasize multilateralism.
National and regional leaders have a great deal of influence in the creation of a peace ecology in conflict societies; they are the most powerful actors of the peace gospel and must use this power to change the existing conflict narrative and the perceptions of the former enemy into a narrative of peace and equality. The political leadership’s rhetoric is important—negotiations can be expressed as “us and us” rather than “us and them,” for instance, to better promote principles of cooperation and commonality.
In fact, during my first meeting with the PLO in Oslo, we discussed the possibility of a “peace propaganda plan.” Our campaign would have focused on relaying a message of nachnu-anachnu (“us and us”). Sadly, the concept was never translated into reality by the political leadership, once again demonstrating the need for public leaders to adjust their rhetoric and policies toward supporting a culture of peace. Anwar Sadat was a master at convincing Israelis of his emphatic views regarding their needs; Yasser Arafat was not. A change in rhetoric is a critical requirement for the creation of a peace ecology.
Peace ecology is intimately related to the other three pillars of peacemaking and must be considered at all steps in the peace process. Because it is so intricately linked to the nature of the relationship with the former enemy, its strategies are less tangible and more psychological—making it one of the most difficult, but one of the most crucial, pillars to achieve.