Explaining Conflict Transformation: How Jerusalem Became Negotiable

Abstract

How can intractable conflicts become negotiable after decades of bloodshed and disagreement? The question is addressed using two lenses—one conceptual, the so-called conflict transformation approach set out in the research literature, and one empirical, the Israeli–Palestinian conflict over Jerusalem. The article discusses turning points in the transformation of Jerusalem from an intractable dispute to an intensively negotiated issue with the contours of a possible agreement emerging. It examines how far the conflict transformation approach helps to explain this critical development, as well as how Jerusalem points to areas in need of further development. The conflict over Jerusalem has become tractable through profound structural and relational change. However, this change is not necessarily permanent. A useful approach to conflict transformation needs to illuminate underlying causes better, and be able to explain relapses into intractability.

Notes

* An earlier version of this paper was presented at the annual conference of the International Society of Political Psychology in Lund, Sweden, in July 2004. For very helpful comments on the present article, I wish to thank Professor Oliver Ramsbotham of the University of Bradford.

¹⁸ Statistics published in Choshen (2004), p. 17.

¹⁷ The Geneva Accord (Beilin–Abed-Raboo Document), < http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5019.htm>.

¹⁶ Personal interview with Nimrod Novik, Senior Aide to Shimon Peres engaged in the interim talks with the PLO and Senior Vice President of the Merhav Group of Companies, Herzliya, Israel, 25 August 1997.

¹⁵ Personal communication with Moshe Amirav, at the time a member of the Jerusalem Municipal Council and Secretary-General of the Shinui Party, in Palo Alto, CA, 27–28 April 1992.

¹⁴ ‘A performance-based roadmap to a permanent two-state solution of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict’ available from the United Nations’ official website, < http://www.un.org/media/main/roadmap122002.html>.

¹³ A good selection of sources on the Camp David talks can be found in Bar-Siman-Tov et al. (2005), pp. 17–18.

¹² Press briefing by Israeli Deputy Foreign Minister Yossi Beilin on the establishment of diplomatic relations between Israel and the Holy See, Jerusalem, 15 June 1994. See also ‘Israelis Push Holy Formula for Jerusalem’, The Times, 15 July 1994; and Ministry of Foreign Affairs (1994).

¹¹ Interview with Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin on Israel Radio, 9 June 1994. Rabin made similar remarks on Israeli TV (Channel 2) on 1 August 1994. A resolution of the Israeli Cabinet Secretariat of 28 May 1995 affirmed its intention to ‘act to strengthen the status of united Jerusalem as the exclusive capital of Israel’ and to ‘fight any attempt to impair this status’.

¹⁰ Remarks by Foreign Minister Shimon Peres before the Israeli Knesset, 9 September 1993.

⁹ The next three sections draw on or are taken from Albin (2004).

⁸ The figures are statistics for the end of 2002, reported in Choshen (2004).

⁷ And interview with Sheik Abdel Hamid Es-Saaih, Spokesman for the Palestine National Council, Amman, and Member of the Royal Academy for Islamic Civilization Research (Al Albait Foundation), in Amman, 2 January 1991; and interview with Sheik Jamal, high-ranking Muslim leader, Jerusalem, 10 November 1990.

⁶ The points and text that follow draw on earlier writings (Albin 1997a; 1997b), where they are discussed more fully.

⁵ In-depth studies of the many levels at which the struggle for Jerusalem is fought include Friedland and Hecht (1996) and Wasserstein (2001).

⁴ Personal communication with Harold H. Saunders, Director of International Affairs at the Kettering Foundation, 6 July 2004.

³ The focus here is on the literature that explicitly recognises and discusses ‘conflict transformation’ as an approach. There is much relevant work in conflict resolution that is not included in the brief discussion here.

² Statistics for 2002, reported in Choshen (2004).

¹ Definitions and usages of the terms ‘conflict resolution’ and ‘conflict transformation’ in the research literature vary widely. They are often portrayed as two distinct and contrasting approaches. At times they are used similarly or even synonymously.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Cecilia Albin

* * An earlier version of this paper was presented at the annual conference of the International Society of Political Psychology in Lund, Sweden, in July 2004. For very helpful comments on the present article, I wish to thank Professor Oliver Ramsbotham of the University of Bradford.