Steve Lear

People involved in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict need to stop using the word “peace.”

For over a decade, I’ve had the privilege of facilitating discussions within the Minnesota community regarding the Middle East conflict. I typically begin by challenging my audience to define “peace.” The responses are similar and predictable:

Peace is a state of harmony.

Peace is a lack of violence.

Peace is a state of getting along.

On the week of March 18, 2012, I had the opportunity to ask Ali Abu Awwad, a Palestinian visionary and leader of Bereaved Families Forum, the same question: “How do you define peace?” His answer: “Harmony.” And that same week, I was able to ask the forever-young visionary of the state of Israel, former President Shimon Peres. He answered, “No war; no violence.”

Both the Israelis and the Palestinians need to understand that a resolution completely devoid of all conflict is impossible. And both Israeli and Palestinian leaders are not helping themselves or their people if they cannot even agree on a vision for the outcome. They are just wasting time and energy.
What happens when leaders can’t agree on a definition for the words they use? If they can’t agree on how to define peace, we won’t know what we are working toward. Then how will we know when we achieve it?

Dan Sullivan, founder of Strategic Coach, speaks to this very issue. In his book Learning How to Avoid the Gap, Sullivan believes that unattainable goals taint the minds of those who wish to achieve them. Total harmony and a complete lack of violence between Israelis and Palestinians sounds beautiful, but it is destroying the process of coexistence. Complete and total peace does not exist even among Americans, as demonstrated daily in the national news.

Total peace is, metaphorically speaking, the horizon, which by definition is impossible to reach. The horizon is always present; even if we appear to get close, we can never actually get there. It remains maddeningly, tauntingly, just ahead. If the Israelis and Palestinians only focus on achieving the horizon, they will all too soon become discouraged and dismayed over the lack of progress toward their goal, thus falling into “the gap” (the distance between where they are and how far they must go to reach their goal). This dejection and dismay lead to feelings of frustration, lack of accomplishment, and, eventually, lowered confidence. Entering negotiations with low or no confidence causes parties to become defensive and intractable, removing the possibility of creating alternatives.

There has been progress over the past 75 years. Israel and its supporters around the world have built a state of economic success and cultural and intellectual vibrancy through what Joanna Landau calls “creative energy.” (Landau is the founder of Vibe Israel, which aims to change the way Israel is perceived in global public opinion by connecting digital influencers from Israel and abroad.) Israel has made peace with the Egyptians, Jordanians, Sudanese, Moroccans, the Emirates, and Bahrain. Palestinians have convinced the world that they are a peoplehood, not just part of another Arab community, and thus deserving of their own state. However, these positive steps apparently provide no sense of accomplishment for members of either community in terms of their ability to coexist.

Let’s set a new goal: ‘Constructive Conflict’ that leads to favorable decision-making.

Constructive conflict is defined as “a condition in which conflict is recognized not as evil, but as the material with which to create personal and community achievement.” Conflict needs to be respected and looked upon as an opportunity to become better, not worse. The opposite of constructive is destructive. Nothing more needs to be said: we do not need more lives, relationships, or material property destroyed.

What people and beliefs are needed to create Constructive Conflict?

1. Leaders who desire to serve their constituencies rather than leaders who believe their people work for them.
2. People who face reality as it is, not as they wish it to be.
3. A belief that you could be wrong, a true sense of humility.
4. A court system of judges, agreed to by both parties, to assist in conflict resolution.

What systems and attitudes are needed to create Constructive Conflict?

1. Put people in a “Yes” mind frame
   Effective problem-solving and decision-making require a certain kind of “action mode” that needs to be recognized. A different type of leader is required during each phase of implementing a constructive conflict model. The person ultimately in charge is responsible for placing the right leader in the right place at the right time.
2. Create clear deadlines
   Deadlines with rewards and penalties need to be established by a third party. These will help instill patience in those who want decisions yesterday and spur action in those who always feel they need more information before they can stop gathering data.
3. Recognize when you have hit what Dan Sullivan calls “the ceiling of complexity.”
   The two communities are buried under countless details, demands, and activities that drain energy and destroy confidence and creativity. To break through, we need to simplify. We need a new set of structures, habits, and capabilities. We need to stop living in the gap. We must end frustration since it only leads to anger and violence.
4. Remain open to an Accountability Manager
   Appointing a third-party Accountability Manager to keep both communities accountable for their actions might be an effective way to ensure progress.

Leaders and followers, let’s decide to change the trajectory of events. Let’s implement the systems and attitudes we need to foster constructive conflict.

This article was originally published by The Times of Israel on April 3, 2012