Language and Conflict Resolution

8/8/2019 Language and Conflict Resolution

1/28

Language and Conflict Resolution: The Limits of EnglishAuthor(s): Raymond CohenSource: International Studies Review, Vol. 3, No. 1 (Spring, 2001), pp. 25-51Published by: Blackwell Publishing on behalf of The International Studies AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3186511

Accessed: 20/10/2009 14:36

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless

you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you

may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=black.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed

page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

The International Studies Association andBlackwell Publishing are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,

preserve and extend access toInternational Studies Review.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/stable/3186511?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=blackhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=blackhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/3186511?origin=JSTOR-pdf


2/28

Language a n d C o n f l i c t Resolution:T h e L i m i t s o f E n g l i s h

RaymondCohen

onflictresolutions a basichumanactivityarticulated ndconductednforms that significantly vary across cultures. Differences in approachrest on contrastingunderstandingsof the natureof conflict and society.A good way to study these differences is througha comparative analysis oflanguage.A pilot study comparingArabic,English, and Hebrew indicates thatthe model of conflict resolutionimplicit in English terminologyis merely onepossible way to depict reality. To non-English speakers it may even appearidiosyncratic.Arabic and Hebrewconvey alternativeversions of conflict reso-lution,notjust carboncopies of aprivileged, English original.1Linguisticanaly-sis points to four primary dimensions of conflict resolution, along which

significantconceptualvariations,reflectedin language,can be detected.2Thesedimensions consist of assumptions about the causes and nature of conflict;expectationsof themechanicsandobjectivesof conflict resolution;understand-ing of what it means for a conflict to have been settled; and preference forritualsappropriateor affirmingandsymbolizingtherestorationof harmoniousrelations at the end of conflict.While it is legitimatefor English speakersto use theirnative-languagepar-adigmas a baseline againstwhich to measurenon-Englishversions, speakersof

'Initsoriginal,dogmaticorm, histhesis s associatedwithEdward apirandBen-jaminWhorf.SeeDavidG.Mandelbaum,d.,SelectedWritingsfEdward apirnLan-guage,Culture,ndPersonalityBerkeley,Calif.:UniversityfCaliforniaress,1963);JohnB.Carroll,d.,Language,Thought,ndReality: electedWritingsf Benjamin eeWhorf(Cambridge,ass.:MITPress,1956).GeorgeSteiner onsiders hetheory'sit-erarymplicationsnAfterBabel:Aspects fLanguage ndTranslation,d ed.(Oxford,U.K:OxfordUniversity ress,1992).Foran mportant ersonal ccount,ee EvaHoff-mann,Lost n Translation: Life n a NewLanguageNewYork:E.P.Dutton,1989).2Languagesbest hought f asshaping xpectationsatherhandetermininghought.

For a modifiedversionof the Sapir-Whorfhesis,see RaymondCohen,"Meaning,InterpretationndInternationalegotiation,"GlobalSociety14,No. 3 (2000),p. 325.? 2001 InternationalStudies AssociationPublishedby Blackwell Publishers,350 Main Street, Maiden,MA 02148, USA, and 108 Cowley Road, OxfordOX4 1JF,UK.


3/28

RaymondCohen

otherlanguagesareequallyentitledto consider their own paradigmsas norma-tive. It is clearthatconflict resolution shouldbe studiedwith full regard or thesourcelanguagein which it is articulatedand conducted.Doubt mustbe cast ontheworkingassumptionhat oreign anguagescanbe ignored n researchbecausegeneralmodels of behavior-or propositionsaboutbehavior,based on English-languagesourcesandexpressedin English-capture anobjective realitysome-how beyond culture.The starting point for this studyis the view that communal life is possibleonlybecausemembersof acommunitypossessa set of sharedmeanings,enablingthem to make coherent sense of the world. This stock of meaningconstitutesthe common sense of the community and underpinsall communication andorganized activity.The mothertongueis the mainrepositoryof a community'scommon sense. Othersystems of symbolic meaningthat demarcatecommuni-ties include religion, popularculture,andnonverbalbehavior.Among the most crucial activities of a communityis its handlingof con-flict, for unless it can contain disagreementand control violence, it has littlehope of surviving.Forthisreason,the subjectof conflict resolution has been ofgreattheoretical and practicalinterest to researchersat both the domestic andinternational evels.From the premisethatlanguageconstitutesa community'sshared stock ofmeaning,we can conclude thatthe studyof language may providean excellententry point for investigatinghow membersof a groupunderstandand handleconflict. A comparativestudyof conciliation vocabulariesreveals thatconceptsthat seem self-evident and straightforwardo the native English speakermayweigh significantly differently in other languages or not exist at all. Cross-culturaldifferences n thedepictionof realityarehard o accept,preciselybecausewe take the pictureof the world conveyed by our native language to be self-evident andprojectit onto everyone else.Cross-linguistic comparisonreveals much about other societies and pro-vokes thoughtabout our own. It is also expedientsince the resolution of inter-culturalconflict, alreadysalient in multiculturalsocieties, is likely to becomeincreasingly significant in an interdependentworld. When paradigmsof con-flict resolutionclash,conceptualandtechnicalcontradictions ave to be addressedif they are to be overcome. Alternatively,differentemphases and approachesmay createunexpectedsynergies and scope for creative conflict resolution.A SEMANTIC APPROACHA semanticapproach, nvolving the comparisonof the meaning of key termsacross languages, is adoptedhere to study cross-culturalvariationsin conflictresolution. This approach s advocated as effective and parsimoniousbecausecommunication s essential in conflict resolution.As a complex, interconnected

26


4/28

Languageand ConflictResolution

chain of nonverbaland verbal messages and moves, conciliation can advanceonly when there is synchronizedand consecutive understandingat every stageof the process.For information o be comprehensiblyexchangedand the issuesat stake to be discussed, the partiesmust be able to draw on a shared store ofmeaning.Yet beforetheycanmeaningfullydiscuss substance,a difficultenoughtask in itself, they must first arrive at a metaunderstanding f form andproce-dure.Tonegotiate peace, rivals mustagreeon what it is "tonegotiate"andwhat"peace" s. Looking at languagerather han cultureas such also helps to avoidculturalstereotypingand sidesteps inconclusive theoretical debates about thenatureof culture.Differentlanguagesconvey differentversions of reality.Tograspwhatpeo-ple thinkabout, for example, the term "reconciliation,"we must first find outwhat they mean by the equivalentconcept in their own language. What theywill expectof reconciliationwill be informedby the localknowledgethat nformstheirunderstandingof the term.If reconciliationimplies in their language thereplacementof hatredby love, then differentconduct will be appropriatehanifit simply means restoringthe routine of day-to-daylife. Of course, what theprotagonistsactuallydo in a given situationdependson circumstances,thoughwe would expect clear patternsof behavior to emerge in aggregate. By com-paring and contrastingthe semantic fields and connotationsof concepts like"conflict"and"resolution"n variouslanguages,we can shed light on similar-ities and differences.At a practical evel, this canhelp identify potential pitfallsand openings in real life conflict resolution across cultures.Enormousprogresshas been madein recent decadesin the studyof conflictresolution, and a voluminous body of work has been producedthat would behard to summarizebriefly.3Most of the literature ooks at the subject generi-cally, which means that common structural eatures of conflict resolution thatcut across cultures are emphasized. Usually, the assumptionof universalityisimplicit. P.H.Gulliverexplicitly comparesand contraststhe negotiationof dis-putes in different culturesin orderto reveal the underlyingand invariant ogicof the process. His pointof departures "thehypothesisthatthereare commonpatterns ndregularities f interaction etweentheparties nnegotiation,rrespec-tive of the particularcontext or the issues in dispute."4This approachseemsjustified in the first instancebecause the major categoriesof conflict resolutionin English-negotiation, adjudication,mediation, and arbitration-appear to

3For a recent overview, see KarinAggestam, Reframingand Resolving Conflict:Israeli-Palestinian Negotiations 1988-1998 (Lund, Sweden: Lund University Press,1999),pp. 16-25.4P.H.Gulliver,DisputesandNegotiations:A Cross-CulturalPerspective(New York:AcademicPress,1979),pp.64-65.

27


5/28


6/28


of saying that language and culture are inseparable; anguage reflects cultureand cultureis reproducedby language.Across languages and societies, seemingly functionally equivalent wordsmay depictvariantversionsof reality.This will be less true of simple,universalobjects (stone, leaf, knife) and more true of abstract deas and social constructs(family, teenager, democracy). Each variant has its own characteristic allu-sions, flavor, and appropriate ange and context of usage. Rooted in a certainculturalsoil, words do not always travel well. It is hard to convey the ideas of"homeless"or "retirementolony"adequatelyn cultureswhere thegroupcomesfirst, and it is almost unthinkablefor people (especially aged parents)to bedetachedfrom the bosom of theirfamilies.Whenthe interpreterriesto transfersuch concepts from one habitat to another, their essence may be "lost intranslation."To visualize this point, imaginethat words cover semantic fields that can bemapped out. In English, a given word occupies a certain space, which thenbecomes the common sense meaning of the word to native English speakers.Theforeign language equivalentmaycovermore orless space,includingmean-ings not presentin the first language,while excludingothers.The connotationsof the word also may differ across languagesfor religious, historical,or envi-ronmentalreasons. If a map of a word in English is placed over a map of theword, say, in Arabic,they may be seen to occupy overlappingbut not identicalareas. The very act of comparisonprovides insight into how the two societiesseparatelyunderstandand value the segment of the world referred to by theword. The assumptionis thatthe greaterthe culturalgap between the ways oflife of societies, the greaterthe potential semanticgap between concepts andtheir labels across languages. It is easier to translateRobert Frost's "The PathNot Taken" romEnglish into Swedish than fromEnglishinto Bedouin Arabic.(Apart from different philosophies of free will, the concept of path is alsodifferentin the desert.)An example of cross-linguisticdissonanceis in order.There are two wordsin English-"stranger" and"guest"-that refer to visitors to a communityfromoutside.In English-speakingcultures,it is commonsense-something obviousand unquestioned-that distinguishesthe concepts as separatecategories.Notall strangersareguests, and not all guests arestrangers.A personmust receivean invitation to cross the borderbetweenbeing a strangerandbecominga guestentitled to hospitality.This voluntaryact bestows a changeof status.Strangersare not usually welcomed into people's homes, and so the notionsof "stranger"and "guest"areclearly differentiated.This is not the case in Greek, where xenos means "stranger" nd "guest"simultaneously.Greek common sense does not demarcate he conceptsdenotedby the words.Reflecting on life in ruralCrete,Martin Hammondbelieves thatstrangershave always been guests: "They were rare enough and a stranger/

29


7/28

RaymondCohen

guest was a cause for pride, for eager, elaborateand, I fear, expensive hospi-tality,and for polite but incessantquestioning.As in the ancientworld,a guestbringsboth honour and information."Just as a society's conceptionof insider-outsider relations and the obliga-tions of hospitalityarefaithfullyreflectedin language, so is its understandingof conflict and conflict resolution. From this observation,it follows thatcloseattention o languagecanprovidea conveniententryinto the studyof culturallygroundeddifferences. Building on this premise, Michael Agar and John PaulLederachproposetwo complementarystrategiesof semanticanalysis.

Rich Points and Key WordsFor MichaelAgar, gaps in the understandingof conflict inevitably"surfaceinthe language people use to interactwith each other."He suggests that majorcross-culturalgaps are revealedatcertain"richpoints"of contrastingmeaning.Thexenos-stranger/guest gapwould be one suchrichpoint. Agar gives anotherexample of a Mexican attorneywho uses the same verb for dealing with agovernmentofficial as is used when a matadorworks the bull in a bullfight.Does the attorneymean that he is goading the official or wearing him downbefore the kill? Or is he referringto a stylized contest with its own ritual andaesthetic? Withoutspeaking Spanishor being familiar with the culture of thebullfight, it is hardfor the native English speakerto get beyond a generalandsuperficial impressionof what is implied.Rich pointsaresignificant"becauseof the intricateweb of associationsandconnotations that they carry with them, webs that have few or only opaquecorrespondingechoes in one's native language, so that no easy translation spossible. Rich points are the linguistic tip of the cultural ceberg,the locationsin discourse which signal major disjunctionsin interpretation."7Rich pointscan seriously impede interculturalnegotiationand conflict resolution.How can we locate andidentify richpoints?The methodsuggestedhere isthe juxtapositionof key words across languages.A key word may be a wordthatencapsulatescentral featuresof a cultureor, in the case of conflict resolu-tion, refers to an important concept (like "conflict" or "compromise").Ray-mond Williams first adopted the method of studying contemporaryEnglishculturethroughkey words.8Recently,AnnaWierzbickahas gone a stepfurther

6MartinHammond,WalkinghroughheOdyssey," heSpectatorLondon),March15,2000,p. 15.7Michael Agar,"LinguisticPeaceWork,"Peace and Change21, No. 4 (1996),pp. 430-433. See also MichaelAgar,LanguageShock: Understanding he CultureofConversationNewYork:WilliamMorrow, 994).8RaymondWilliams,KeywordsLondon:Fontana, 976).

30


8/28


by comparingkey words across cultures.9The present exercise applies thismethodto vocabulariesof conflict resolution.Themes and MetaphorsAgar sees rich points as linked togetherandgiven coherenceby underpinningthemes. JohnPaul Lederachdevelopedthis argumentn reflectionson theartic-ulationof conflict in Costa Rican Spanish.He noticed thatneighborsdiscuss-ing aproblem n Puntarenas,CostaRica,used "anentirerepertoireof termsandphrasesdescribingthe manyfaces of conflict"buttendedto avoid the wordforconflict itself. Conflict, they told him, was whathappened n Nicaragua(wherea civil war was raging), not here. In Costa Rica, they had "pleitos, lios, andenredos(fights,messes, andentanglements)."WhenLederachcollatedandana-lyzed this extensive and colorful vocabulary,he realized that words and meta-phors provided"enormous nsightinto how people thinkabout,respondto, andexperience conflict in their everyday setting."He found that "key metaphorsrevolved aroundheat, feeling trappedor lost with no way out, andunderstand-ing conflict as embeddedin a networkof people."The word enredo was par-ticularlyindicative because it stems from the word for a fisherman's net (red)and evokes the tangle of complicationsthat results when disagreementsspreadthroughouta tightly knit society of close communities and extended families.Lederach'sconclusion, which I thoroughlyendorse,is that"language s alwaysmore than a vehicle for communication.It is also a window into how peopleorganizeboth theirunderstandingandexpressionof conflict, often in keepingwith culturalpatternsandways of operating."10

THE ENGLISH VERSIONSince English is now widely used as a global lingua franca,the preferred an-guage of internationalorganizations,science, and the Internet,many Englishspeakerstend to assume thatit is free of idiosyncrasyand culturalbias. It mayeven be thoughtof as a metalanguagebeyond culture,depictingthe world in acompletely objective way, like a system of mathematicalnotation.When theglobal language is also the tongue of a culturally omnipresent, ideologicallyevangelical power, thatview gains addedcredence.English is a highly effective medium of exchange when used as a commontechnical language by engineers,bankers, soldiers, lawyers, anddiplomats.As

9AnnaWierzbicka,UnderstandingCulturesthroughTheirKey Words New York:OxfordUniversityPress,1997).l?John Paul Lederach,Preparingfor Peace: Conflict Transformation cross Cul-tures Syracuse,N.Y.:SyracuseUniversityPress,1996),pp.74-78.

31


9/28

RaymondCohen

long as experts, who draw on an acceptedvocabularyof defined terms,use alanguagein a precise, "thin"sense, scope for cross-culturalmisunderstandingis limited.Whenaviationspecialists andlawyers negotiatean air trafficagree-mentunder the BermudaConvention,linguistic andcultural(butnot necessar-ily political or substantive)gaps areunlikely to have much salience. But theseare restrictive conditions that hold because experts "speak a common lan-guage"and are membersof a professionalculture.The less thesecircumstancesapply,the less self-evident the case for the universalvalidityof English. Prob-lems arise with the assumptionof consonance across cultures when interlocu-tors are not fellow experts workingin their own discipline, when the issues atstakeareemotive, abstract,andvalue-laden,and when thereis no methodolog-ical consensus.

Weshallbegin thiscomparativeanalysis by consideringthe vocabulary hatEnglishuses to portray(andtherefore hink and talkabout)conflict resolution.This considerationcan help explain the unstated,underlyingpremises. It alsoprovides us with a basis of comparison,a benchmarkagainst which we canmeasurethe peculiaritiesof other discourses. English displays four dominant(albeit overlapping)themes and metaphors-industrial relations,engineering,Christian heology, and sportsandgames.Industrial RelationsA characteristic eature of the English vocabularyof conflict resolutionis theprominenceof terms linked to settling labor-managementdisputes. Since theEnglish-speakingworld is madeup of established industrialsocieties, boastinga long historyof legislation to establish rules andmechanismsof labor concil-iation, this should come as no surprise. "Dispute" tself is a disagreementorquarrel hat touches on important ssues, such as people's livelihoods, butdoesnot on the whole possess the connotationof belligerenceattached o "conflict."A work dispute may involve heated debate,high stakes, and tense confronta-tion, but the assumptionis that the opponentswill pursuetheir differences ofopinion throughnonviolentmethods of persuasion.The suggestion is that theissues are not zero sum, thatcompromiseis possible and desirable because thedisputantshave shared nterests,and that resolutionwill be achievedultimatelythrough some form of institutional or legal recourse, such as arbitrationormediation."Conflict"can overlapwith "dispute"and is used loosely of a generalclashof interestsor views. Yet it often retainsa flavor of its originalviolent sense of"anencounterwith arms;a fight, battle."Forthesereasons,manywritersprefer

" In thefollowingaccount, referextensivelyo thecompleteOxfordEnglishDic-tionary,2d ed. (Oxford,U.K.: OxfordUniversityPress,1993).

32


10/28

Language and ConflictResolution

the word"dispute" o "conflict"for a domestic altercation.ADR is now a tech-nicalexpression referring o nonconfrontationalechniquesof conciliation. Notethat the distinction between a structured,more manageable "dispute"and adeep-seated,possiblyviolent andunpredictable conflict"s not made in HebrewandArabic, which have one umbrella term to cover both meanings (sichsuchand niza'). It is my contention-and presumablythat of ADR practitioners-that this semanticdistinction fosters a discriminatingway of thinkingaboutaconcept. If you talk about a quarrelas a "dispute," hen you are likely to con-sider it more malleable thanif you dub it a "conflict."Otherkey wordsgenerallyused in a conflict resolution context are also con-nected to industrialrelations. "Conciliation," he act of bringing contraryout-looks into harmony,was the term chosen in Britain and the Antipodes in thenineteenthcentury orthepeaceful,legal proceduresused in the resolutionof in-dustrialproblems.Suchproceduresresulted n the 1867 BritishCouncils of Con-ciliationAct, the 1894New ZealandIndustrialConciliation andArbitrationAct,andthe establishmentof conciliationboards odealwithindustrialproblems."Ar-bitration" nd "mediation" cquired ndustrial onnotations nthetwentiethcen-tury,especially in theUnited States.Today,bothproceduresplaya centralroleinthe settlementof labor-management rievances,andasophisticated ystemof leg-islationandregulatoryagencies is in place. "Settlement,"he termoftenappliedto thecompromiseresultingfrom successful industrialconciliation,has a wholerangeof establishedlegal meanings.In the context of disputeresolution,it im-plies anarrangement utting ormerlycontentiousaffairson asecure,stablefoot-ing andreflects the institutionalizationof this form of conflict resolution.By drawing on an industrial relations vocabulary,we introduce assump-tions aboutthe natureof conflict resolution nto the debate.Labor-managementdisputes were not always settled so efficaciously and peacefully as they aretoday (and in many parts of the world they are still the occasion for violenceand brutalrepression).That they are is a result of long socialization and thepurposefulconstructionof intricateregulatorymachinery.Within such a frame-work, disputantscan be confident that their needs will be fairly and effec-tively addressed,that the weak will not simply go to the wall, and that theoutcome, resulting from mutual and balanced concessions, will be a reason-able compromise."Compromise"s the pivotal concept here and refers to the adjustmentofdifferencesinvolving balancedconcessions. In English usage, a willingness tocompromiseis usually seen as laudable,and the termis even reified ("whatweneed is a spiritof compromise").Lackinga precise equivalent,in recentyearsArabic has adoptedhal wasat (middle solution) to approximatecompromise.But hal wasat lacks the ethic of compromise.With hal wasat,thereverseapplies:a compromiseover principle(such as Honor,Justice, Truth,the Land) is to bedeplored,not explored.

33


11/28

RaymondCohen

Many distinguishedAmericandiplomats, includingArthurGoldberg,SolLinowitz, GeorgeShultz,CyrusVance,andWarrenChristopher ut their teethworkingon labor-managementelations.Industrial onciliationprovideda train-ing groundfor skills andhabits of mind laterappliedto international elations.Key ideas in the theoreticalliteraturecame out of the same experience. Oneexample is the seminaldistinction drawnbetween "distributive" argaining, nwhich one side's gain is theother side's loss, andmutuallyadvantageous "win-win") "integrative"bargaining.12

EngineeringThe enormous success of industrialconciliation,with its elaborateapparatus flaws and agencies, gave rise to the hope that similarly rational instrumentscould be developedandappliedelsewherewithequallybeneficialresults.Imbuedwith a spirit of "can do," this approachseeks to apply to conflict study thetechniquesof systematicdata collection andanalysisused in otherareasof thebehavioralsciences. Lessons learned are to be appliedin trainingprofessionalfacilitators. Outside the English-speakingworld are skeptical voices. GeorgeIraniquestions the philosophy that "virtuallyevery conflict can be managedand resolved" and notes a Lebanesesuspicion"of the theoryandtechniquesofWesternconflict resolution."He believes thatpeople in the Middle East see it"as a scheme concocted by the United States to facilitate and hasten" Israel'sintegration n the region.'3At the linguistic level, the effort to professionalize dispute resolution isfound in the adoptionof a low-key, technical vocabulary,which owes every-thing to science andengineeringandnothingto the loaded and fatalistic meta-phorsof entangling ommunal iesobservedbyLederachn CostaRica. Particularattentionshouldbe paidto the words"problem,""process,"and"solution,"notoriginallyconflict resolution terms as such,butwidely adopted n this context."Problem" s the term often appliedin English, with deliberateunderstate-ment,to a gravedomesticdisputeor international onflict. By preferring his toanother,moregraphicword,the quarrel s placedin a commonbasket,togetherwith otherpuzzles that are susceptibleto the dispassionateexercise of reason.This is not a self-evident classification. Othermetaphorsof tragedyand strug-gle are available. From anotherculturalperspectivecolorful descriptionmightbe chosen more readilythan understatement.The implicationof "problem"sthat the conflict is amenableto rationalanalysis, that it can be handledobjec-

2RichardE. Waltonand RobertB. McKersie,A BehavioralTheoryof LaborNego-tiations: An Analysis of a Social Interaction System (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1965).13GeorgeIrani,"IslamicMediationTechniques or Middle EastConflicts,"MERIAJournal 3, No. 2 (1999), p. 1.

34


12/28


tively,andthata solution s possible."Solution"s anemphaticallymathematical-scientific term."Process,"too, is a word that elicits math and engineeringor a patterned

series of events that can be understood and controlled.With its hint of conti-nuity and progress, "peace process" is an upbeat label to affix to the manyfrustratingattemptsto disentanglethe webs of hatred n Northern Ireland andthe Middle East. "Process"capturesdecadesof theperseveranceof BritishandAmericanconciliators n the face of discouragingsetbacks. 'Amaliyatal-Salam,theArabicterm,is connectedwith notions of work andaction.But it lacks thesameoptimisticconnotationsof steady progressorcontinuingeffort, even if noend is in sight. 'Amaliya mplies a product,notjust movement.Christian TheologyReligious imagery is a common feature of the conflict resolution discourse.This may be because religion, which underpinstraditionalculture, centrallyconcernsitself with the ethics of human strife andharmony.But radicallydif-ferenttheological perspectives on strife, peace, suffering,andjustice spawn astrikingdiversityof values and notions across languages."Reconciliation" s one of the key conflict resolution words in the Englishlexicon, in terms of frequencyof use and salience as an objective.In its primarycontemporarysense, it means restoring a relationshipafter estrangementorbringinga disputeto an end throughamicableagreement.It assumes an innerchange of heart and mind. "Reconciliation"also possesses ancient and hal-lowed Christianassociations. One set of meaningsis related to thereadmissionof a sinner,an excommunicant,into union with the Church. Othermeaningsrefer to acts of expiation, atonement,purification,and absolution.Underpin-ning all these senses is the core belief that people should live in peace andharmonywith God and with one another.This core belief lends the derivativenotion of reconciliation between men and women transcendent worth andurgency.Hencegreatemphasis s placedon therehabilitation f humanrelations.Withoutreconciliation,it is takenfor granted n English-speakingculturesthatany practicalset of arrangementss unlikely to last. In addition,reconcil-iation, like forgiveness between enemies, is viewed as an end in itself, an eth-ical imperative.Norare thesemerely empty expressions,butsignpoststo action.If you believe that people are put on earth to live in harmonyand love oneanother,then this has far-reaching operative consequences for the way youconceive of and handle conflict. Christian nongovernmental organizations(NGOs) have investedmuchtime andmoneyinto grassrootsprograms ntendedto bringabout reconciliation-a changeof heart and mindbetween rivalgroupslike Israelis and Palestinians.Otherkey conflict resolution terms with a religious flavor are "goodwill"and"goodfaith."These terms are to be distinguishedfromsimple "trust."Min-

35


13/28

RaymondCohen

imal trustis necessaryin resolving a disputebecause without it reliable com-munications impossibleandno partywill conclude anagreement hat tbelieveswill be violated later.The synonymsmentionedabove contain additionalvalue-laden associations.As a condition of progress,"goodwill"implies a virtuouspredispositionto benevolence and goes beyond plain reliability.It is found inthe New Testament njunction,"andon earthpeace, good will toward men."14Analogously, "good faith" implies a sincere commitment to resolve conflictand an honest intentionto carryout any agreementreached. It recalls religiousterms such as "theFaith,""come all ye faithful,""menof faith,"and "0 ye oflittle faith." Good faith in the resolution of conflict derives from an ethicalobligationto spread peace and not just from expediency.Sportsand GamesA strikingfeatureof the English-languagediscourse of negotiationand conflictresolutionis the employmentof sportsandgames similes. Some examples are"level playing field," "play by the rules,""fairplay," "way out in left field,""close call," "in the home stretch,""runwith the ball," and "hit a home run."Some of these terms are incomprehensibleto a nonnativespeakerof Englishwho is unfamiliar with the sports and games popularin the English-speakingworld, such as baseball, soccer,Americanfootball, tennis, golf, racing, rugby,cricket,andpoker.Referenceto sportsoriginatesfrom a love of games and the open air and along historyof vigorouspublicrecreationamongtheEnglish-speakingpeoples.Organizedteam games were introduced nto British and Americanschools inthe nineteenth century to channel high spirits in harmless directions and topromote physical fitness. They were also consciously promotedas a way ofteaching such cherished martial values as team spirit, discipline, and leader-ship, and were an excellent means of instilling good citizenship and fair play,an ethic of gallantconduct toward an opponentgoing beyond the strict rules.

Using sportsvocabularyreflects a profoundAnglo-Saxontendencyto per-ceive and configure all kinds of contests, whether in the social or politicalarenas, as structuredactivities, governed by fairness and decency, and con-ducted withina frameworkof enforceable laws or rules of the game. Sportsarestrenuousphysical struggle,a surrogate orconflict, fought by clearrules for anartificial goal. Since sports are stylized, sublimated conflict played from anearly age, it is not surprisingthatadults should later view real conflict in thesame terms of orderly engagement.If thereis a single characteristic eatureofconflict and its resolutionin the English-speakingworld, it is the tendencytorelateto it as a rule-regulatedactivity thatis governedby the values of equityand fair play.

14Luke :14.

36


14/28


THE ARABIC VERSIONArabicis spoken by about200 million people andis an official languageof theUnited Nations. As the language of the ProphetMuhammadand the Qur'an,and thereforethe linguafranca of Islamiccivilization,Arabic has been used formany centuries,not only as the mothertongue of the Arabs,but also as a richandevocative languageof theology, philosophy,science, literature,diplomacy,and trade.Ithas also had aprofound nfluence on manyother anguages,includ-ing Farsi, Malay, Swahili, Turkish,and Urdu. Precise Arabic equivalents areavailable for all technical diplomaticterms.15Since the arrivalof Napoleon inEgypt in 1798, the Arab worldhas been in close contact with the West,andtheArabs are no strangersto Europeanways. Westernlaw and institutionshavehad a formativeimpact.Nevertheless, conflict resolution in theArab world hasa distinctive characterall its own. The Arabic terminologyof conflict resolu-tion lacks the four majorthemes thatdominateEnglish-languagediscourse.16Instead,it reflects two primarymotifs: Honor andIslamic ethics.

HonorArabiclanguageand culturerecall even todaythe traditional, ribalway of lifethattypifiedthe inhabitantsof the ArabianPeninsulabefore the advent of Islamin the seventhcentury.Arabic still evokes a world of martialskills andvirtues;a harsh,nomadic existence among domestic animals;and a society of closelyknit families organizedinto clans on the basis of segmentallineage. Since clanmembershave little chance of survivingon theirown, primaryvalues relate tothe welfare of the group and the individual'splace and duties within it. Keyconceptsincludesharaf (standing,honor), 'ird(dignity,honor),andwajh(face,reputation).In this segmented, honor-basedsociety, clan rivalry is endemic. Conflictmay ignite over matters of honor,which can be anythingconcerningwomen,land,property,and one's good name orthat of one's family.17Equally,a disputemay startoutas anargumentover somethingtrivial andquicklyescalate into anaffair of honor. Conflict risks igniting blood revenge or retribution tha'r), acycle of murderous euding between clans thatmight smolder for years. Note

15See MamumAl-Hamui,DiplomaticTermsBeirut:Khayats,1966).161 have drawnuponJ.M.Cowan, ed., The Hans WehrDictionary of ModernAra-bic,4thed. (Wiesbaden:Harrassowitz,994).17Article 340 of the JordanianPenal Code recognizes honoras an extenuatingcir-cumstancein murdercases. Official Jordanian igures show that thereare on averagetwenty-five "honorkillings"a year,involving themurderby family membersof femalerelativesbelieved to have committedadultery.ChristianArabs as well as Muslims areinvolved in the practice(BBC News, April 24, 2000).

37


15/28

RaymondCohenthat the commonArabic word for "conflict"(niza') covers the semantic fieldsof both the English terms "dispute"and "conflict."Niza' may be merely averbalquarreland need not be violent. But it has the potentialto become so.

Traditional onflict resolution drew on tribalcustom and involved informalor formal modes of mediation and arbitration wasata and tahkim).Until themoder era, there was no state and no secular law. Local ties and patternsofinfluence were paramount,andconciliatorspaid particularattention to savingface. Face saving in this system is essentialbecauseif thereis to be a workablesolution,neitherpartymustbe shamed.Islamic EthicsThe prominenceof Islamic principlesof conciliation is the second distinctivefeature of Arabicconflict resolution.These concepts are built intoArabic,justas those of Christianityare ingrainedin the fabric of English. To the nativespeaker, hey constitute self-evident truthsandtautologies.Themajorconceptsreferred o below are tahkim(formal arbitration),musalaha (act of reconcilia-tion) and the related word sulh (peaceful settlement,reconciliation),and 'afw(pardon,forgiveness). Althoughrooted in pre-Islamictradition,they acquiredstrong religious significance when the ProphetMuhammad ntroduced theminto Islam.

UnderpinningIslamic law and conflict resolution is the cardinalprincipleof 'adl. Connectedwith the idea of balance, 'adl has a rich rangeof meaningsincluding"justice,""equity,""impartiality," fairness,"and"honesty."Anotherkey word is haqq, which means both "truth"and "law,"evoking notions ofcorrectness and rightness.The pluralform, huquq,means "rights."Truth andrightsare seen as two sides of the same coin. Haqq, significantly,is one of thenames of God, therefore a divine attribute. 'Adl and haqq are supremevaluesfor Muslims-categorical imperatives,epitomizing all that is virtuous. Theyfigure prominently nArabic discourse and have decisively shapedArabexpec-tationsin Arab-Israelipeacemaking.A dual system of religious and civil courts exists in the Arab world. Inaddition, hereare traditional orms of conciliationat the communal evel. Resortto these mechanisms varies accordingto place andcircumstances.The disinte-grationof state institutions caused by the Lebanese civil war left a vacuum tobe filled by the religious courts andalternativemethods of conflict resolution.Similarly,in Palestinian territoriesoccupied by Israel, mistrust for the Israelicourtsystemboosted resort to local variantsof arbitration.18 ut even in stateswith robustlegal systems, customaryapproaches o conflict resolutionmay be

18IfrahZilberman, Customary aw as a Social System n the JerusalemArea"(Hebrew),The New East 33 (1991);Ali H. Qleibo,"TribalMethodsof ConflictResolution-The Palestinian Model: Atwah or SulhAsha'iry," in Jay Rothman, ed.,

38


16/28


preferred.Traditionalvaluesremaincompelling. Manyurbandwellers areonlya generationor two away from the moral fellowship of the ruralcommunity.Finally,the old ways of accommodatingdifferencesareoften more effective inrestoringcommunalharmonythan is resortingto adjudication,an expensivesystem not necessarily accessible to ordinary olk.The alternatives o the courts aretahkim, ormalarbitration, ndwasata, aninformal mediation-arbitrationhybrid.As a procedure,tahkim s only slightlyless formal andjudicial in tone thanadjudicationby the courts. Tojudge and toarbitratestem from the same root, and hukmis both a legal judgment and anarbitraldecision. Ahmad Al-Shahi describes tahkimas a "bureaucraticegalinstitution associatedwith the modern state" andcontrasts t with wasata, con-ciliation within the local community.19Nizar Hamzeh characterizes ahkim asinvolving the binding decision of an arbitrator r panel of arbitratorsdrawingon legal principles. There is an academic disagreementbetween two Islamicschools of thoughtwhether the arbitralaward s morallyor legally binding.Yetthere is no disputethat the decision is effectively obligatory.20Tahkimhas two significantfeatures:unlike in litigation,the disputantshavesome say in the selection of the arbitrators.More important,the role of thearbitrators s not simply to make a judicial ruling but to try to reconcile theantagonists. In a case of maritalarbitration, ailure will lead to the divorcecourt.21 Tahkim s a procedure long recognized by Islam. Ahmad Moussallipoints out thatit is frequentlyreferred o in the Qur'anandwas "adopted ntothe Islamic legal system as a key element in settling disputes and litigation."The ProphetMuhammadhimself acted as an arbitrator.Arbitratorswere tradi-tionallywise men of flawless merit,and their"judgmentsweretreatedas moralandphilosophicaldiscourses on life and society ... seen not only as of a con-tractualnaturebut also of a moral nature." 2Besides tahkim,disputantshave available to themwasata, wherelocal cus-toms play a central part. Wasata draws on the good offices of one or morenotables acceptableto the disputants.Wasit(mediator) s derivedfrom awsat,which literally means "middle."But the usual translationof wasata as "medi-

PracticingConflictResolution n DividedSocieties(Jerusalem:eonardDavis Insti-tute, 1993).19Interview,April 14, 2000.20A. NizarHamzeh,"The Role of Hizbullahin ConflictManagementwithin Leba-non's ShiaCommunity,"n Salem,ed., ConflictResolution in theArabWorld,pp. 105-107. See alsoMuhammadFaour,"ConflictManagementwithintheMuslimArabFamily:Observations and Three Case Studies,"in ibid., p. 183.21Ibid.22Ahmad S. Moussalli, "AnIslamic Model for Political Conflict Resolution: Tah-kim (Arbitration),"n Salem, ed., ConflictResolution in theArab World,pp. 47-48,50-58.

39


17/28

RaymondCohenation" in the Westernsense is misleading because, in the end, the mediatorsproposea settlement that the parties may not like at first. Like a hakam(arbi-trator),a wasit is expected to come up with a judgment,not facilitate a nego-tiation.As GeorgeIraniexplains,"Themediator s perceivedas someonehavingall the answers and solutions." 3 Nizar Hamzeh sees the hakamand wasit asbroadly similar but notes that in wasata "the disputantshave some indirectcommunication."4To performthe role of an intermediary,a wasit should be reliable andfair,pure of heart, and with good intentions.Traditionally,a wasit is a venerable,utterly respectable local dignitarywhose integrity is impeccable and whoseverdictwill thereforebe beyond challenge. In the northernpartof the Sudan,itis said that the disputantshave to respect the intermediary'swords (i.e., deci-sion) as final and "not throw them on the ground."In Hizbullah circles, theverdict is describedas morallybut not legally binding.Personalwealthmaybean asset to a mediator,and in Bedouin society, a wasit may have to reachintohis own pocketto sweeten or facilitate the deal in apracticalsense. A mediatoris usually male, but a woman can act as intermediary f at least one of thepartiesis female.25Wasataproceeds with the disputants separatelyinvited to give the media-tors their version of the facts andrehearsetheirgrievances. They may be ques-tioned in detail. The partiesmay come before the mediators,or a mediatormayvisit the partiesin theirown homes. Havingheardthemout, the mediators hencome up with theirdecision-reflecting their consideredopinion of the rightsandwrongsof the case, the good of the community,and whatwill putan end tothe underlyingcauses of the dispute.Unlike adjudicationor formalarbitration,this is not a courtprocedure,and witnesses or the police arenot called in. Theprocess may go on for severaldays, as mediatorsgo back and forth between thepartiesto cajole andpersuade hemto accepta settlement.Duringthe courseofthe mediation,tempersmayrunhigh, proposalsmaybe rejectedin disgust,andthreatsmay be madeby the partiesto breakoff the mediation. Thereis doubt-less some posturingby the disputantsas they attemptto influence the finaljudgmentin theirown favor.As AhmadAl-Shahi notedfrom his personal experienceof conflict resolu-tion in the northernpartof the Sudan,the protractednatureof the process wasdeliberatelyintended to wear down the objections of the disputantsand evenphysically wear them out. He also observedthat the presenceof mediatorswascritical because they providedthe disputantswith the social incentive to accept

23Irani, IslamicMediationTechniques,". 5.24Hamzeh, TheRoleOfHizbullah,". 108.25Faour, ConflictManagement,". 186.

40


18/28


the verdict to avoid shamingthe mediators.26 n his descriptionof wasata inJordan,RichardAntounemphasizedits publicandsocial dimensionby observ-ing that the stagefor the action was largelythevillage guesthouse.27 n additionto marshallingsubstantiveargumentsabout the issues in dispute, mediatorsmake considerableplay with their own honorandstanding,personalties to theparties,and the widerkinshipand social implicationsof the quarrel.Consider-able moralpressureto settle is placed on the protagonists.The resolution of a conflict is hasminiza' (literally,the terminationof con-flict). Hasm means the "decisive end" of something and is connected withhasama, "to cut," and husam, a classical word for "sword."Ending a disputeinvolves a practicalarrangement ffectively addressingthe issues under con-tention. But symbolic expedientsareequally important o arrive at sulh, a set-tlement andreconciliation between enemies. In the case of murder, he arbitraljudgment might call for the murderer o be sent into exile and compensationpaid to the victim's family. The main objective is to preventthe outbreakof ablood feud.28There may also be a request for pardonor forgiveness, 'afw. This is animportantconceptfound in the Qur'an,withconnotationsof divine forgivenessof sin. It catches the combination of honor and ethics at the heart of Arabconflict resolution.An apology might not seem to add up to much, but in anhonor-basedsociety, it entails a difficult public admission of guilt for wrong-doing. Begging pardonhas a ritual,formaldimension,and the guilty partymaynot believe in his heart that he is to blame. Nevertheless, the utterance itselfdeclares responsibilityand exonerates one of the parties, so it is an excellentmeansof severingthe sequenceof reprisalandcounterreprisal.The appropriateresponse to the plea for pardonfrom the injuredparty,now in a position ofmoralsuperiority, s a magnanimousgrantof forgiveness.29In tribalsociety the culminatingsymbolic act of reconciliation,musalaha,takes place at the sulh or sulha ceremonyof peacemaking(all words are fromthe same root meaning "good," "right,"and "proper").The two families orclans meet to implementthe arbitral udgmentand seal the compactwith ges-tures of reconciliation, embracing, eating, and drinkinground the communaltable.Thussocialrelationsresumeandcommunalharmonys restored.30Whether

26Interview,pril14,2000.27RichardAntoun,"Institutionalizedeconfrontation: Case Studyof ConflictResolutionamongTribalPeasantsn Jordan,"n Salem,eds., ConflictResolutionntheArabWorld, p. 140-174.28Hamzeh, TheRole Of Hizbullah,"p. 110-113.29Ibid.,p. 114;AhmadAl-Shahinterview.30Antoun, Institutionalizedeconfrontation,"p. 144, 163.

41


19/28

RaymondCohenall inner resentment and antagonismare removed is beside the point. RichardAntoun sees the value of peacemakingas "fictive (the public demonstrationthat hardfeelings have disappeared),pragmatic (allowing resumptionof nor-mal social relations),and educational(as the villagers put it, 'our guesthousecouncils are our schools'); andnot psychological or ethical."31

THE HEBREW VERSIONUnlike English andArabic,Hebrewis a minor nationaltongue spoken by onlyaboutfive or six millionpeople. Israelismostlyconduct nternational xchangesin English. Nevertheless, the Hebrew discourse of conflict resolution deci-sively informsIsraelithinkingon the subject.Unless they speak English at thenative speakerlevel, most Israelis at best "speak English and think Hebrew."Moreover,apartfrom face-to-face exchanges with their foreign interlocutors,Israelis conduct internalbusiness in their own tongue.All papers,instructions,memos, consultations,speeches, briefings, reports,andcorrespondencedirectedby Israelisto Israelis are in Hebrew. Even if the externallanguageis English,the internal anguageis Hebrew.How does the Hebrewvocabularyof conflict resolutiondifferfrom thatofEnglish? Hebrew discourse is not significantly typified by the themes seen tocharacterizeEnglish.A few sportssimiles can be translatedaccurately romtheEnglish, like the expression, "the ball is in his court." But in most cases, aliteral translationdoes not make sense. Israelisdo not thinkof conflict resolu-tion in sportstermsbecausesportsdo notplaythe same role in Israeli culture asin Anglo-Saxon culture.Sports arenot a primary nstrumentof educationandsocialization;youthmovementsandmilitaryserviceperform hese roles. Hebrewborrowsthe word "fair" n limited contexts, such as children'sgames, but fairplay is not a viable culturalconcept.Military rather than sports metaphorsare rife in Israeli negotiating dis-course. The word for negotiating position, emda, is the same as that for a for-tified outpost or "stand,"as in "Custer's ast stand."Bitachon, meaning both"security"and "certainty,"s a supremenationalshibboleth,presumablyas aresult of past persecutionand continuousvulnerability."Ministerof defense"translates nto Hebrewas "ministerof bitachon"(security).The goal of nego-tiationsis always peace and security.Thevocabularyof industrial onciliationis sparse n Hebrewbecause labor-managementdisputeshave always been dealt with directlyby the governmentandthe Histadrut radeunionfederation.Religious concepts such as "reconcil-iation" and"forgiveness"certainlyexist in Hebrew,but bear connotationsthatdepart significantly from the Christianethic of forgiving an enemy.Historical

31Ibid.,p. 163.

42


20/28


enemies of the Jewish people are anathematizedas eternal foes. Conversely,Jewish culture tends to reduce all kinds of disputes, disagreements,and con-flicts to verbaldebate and to view argumentas inherentlydesirable,an ethic initself.32 Yet there are importantsharedJudeo-Christian alues, such as a pref-erence for persuasionover violence, the peace ethic, and the profoundassump-tions that concession and compromise are at the heart of any settlement ofdifferences.Inrecentyears,ADR has been introduced nto Israelfrom the United States.33Two words have been invented by the Academy for the HebrewLanguagetoprovidea minimalADR vocabulary:pishur, meaning"conciliation" n general(relatedto pshara, compromiseor arbitralaward),andgishur for "mediation"in the conciliatorysense used by ADR specialists.The Israeli courts now sug-gest gishur in manycases as an optionfor litigants.There is thereforegrowinginterest in these concepts, but Israelis still tendto resortto litigationor formalarbitration o resolve domestic disputes.For "solution,"Hebrew has the Biblical wordpitaron. In Biblical Hebrew,pitaron means the interpretationof a dream,as in the story of Joseph at Pha-raoh's court. This flavor of decipheringan arcane ext is retained n other mean-ings of theword,includingtheideaofpitaron as the "resolution" f a conflict-therightanswer to a knottyissue underdispute.Pitaronimplies that the answeris there if only those involved are wise enough to come up with a satisfactoryformula.It also reflects a strongbelief in the efficacy of reasoned discussion.Significantly,pitaron is closely linked etymologically withpshara. There is adeep-seated assumptionthat the satisfactorysolution to a dispute or politicalconundrumwill usually entail a compromise.Overthe manyyearsof U.S. and U.N. efforts to mediatein the Arab-Israeliconflict, "mediator"was alwaysrenderedby metavech, iterally"agent"or "bro-ker." Most commonly, metavech refers to the intermediary n a commercialtransaction,such as a house sale. For this service the agentreceives a fee. Thusmediation s thoughtof as a way of doingbusiness and not of resolvingconflict.Significantly,Israel, in marked contrast to the Arabs,has rarelybeen enthusi-asticabout activediplomaticmediation.Moreover,since mediatorshave a mate-rial stake in ensuringthe success of a negotiation, it is assumedthatthey areacting out of self-interest,not benevolence.The Hebrew discourse of conflict resolution is dominatedby legal termi-nology, much of which goes back to the Talmud,the great compendium ofJewish law, ethics, andcustom redactedfrom the second to fifth centuriesCE.

32JacobNeusner,"EthnicTraitor ReligiousValue:WhyWeJewsEnjoya GoodArgument,"udaism 6, No. 1 (1997).33 SeeDavidMatz,"ADRandLife in Israel,"Negotiation ournal7, No. 1 (1991),pp. 11-16.

43


21/28

RaymondCohenIt was the basis for rabbinicalrulings on all aspects of family and communalexistence in the diaspora.Since emphasis in the Talmud s placed on debates,disputes, and arguments,the vocabularyof conflict makes a comprehensiveappearance.The common theme running throughthe entire literature s thatdisputesare understoodas, or reducibleto, differences of textualinterpretationthat can be reconciled with ingenuity. Disagreementis viewed as naturalsincethe truthemergesout of the exchange of opinions between disputants.There are several words for "argument";or example, pilpul refers to atypicalform of dialecticalreasoning engagedin by Talmudistswho debatedthemeaningof atext and relatedcommentaries.Todaythetermrefers to an exhaus-tive style of legal argumentation,placing special emphasis on interpretationsand definitions. Vikuachcovers a broad semanticfield, including "argument,""discussion,""disputation," controversy," polemic,"and"debate."These usesare linkedby the common idea that interlocutorsattempt hrough ogical meansto persuadeeach other of the correctnessof acertainpointof view. "Argue" nd"prove"areclosely related n Hebrewsince they derive from the same root. WemayconcludethatwhileEnglishdraws ine distinctionsbetween different hadesof argument,Hebrewcollates all forms of reasonedpersuasion ntoone category.Another significant term is machloket,a serious "differenceof opinion."Yet the termclearly implies thatthe problemis surmountable,and it would beunusualfor a machloketto be resolvedby other thanpeaceful means. BetweenTalmudicsages, a "machloket or the sake of heaven"was a scholarly disputa-tion about a pointof law.Such(essentiallytextual)debates werenotconsideredlamentableor schismaticbut viewed as the essence of learning.A readinessforardentdebateon serious issues remains a strikingfeatureof Jewish culture tothis day.The commonumbrellaterm for "conflict" s sichsuch,but it covers a widersemanticfield than the English word does. Its rangeof meanings encompassesinternationalconflicts like the Arab-Israeli dispute, feuds between communi-ties, labor disputes, family or neighborhood quarrels,even falling out with afriend. Thus sichsuch can entail the disruptionof a relationshipor involve aviolent,protracted tateof hostility.Since sichsuch can refer to majorand minorantagonismsalike, the word has less fateful connotations than "conflict."Asichsuch is partof the naturalorder of things, but there is the implicationthatthe same methodsof reasonedpersuasionused for tacklinga minorquarrelareequally appropriateor settling a majorcase of strife.Like the United States, Israel is a disputatioussociety and many quarrelsend up in litigation.The traditionalalternativeto litigation, going back to theTalmudicperiod,is arbitration,borerut.In fact, manycases in Israeltodaythatcome before ajudge endupbeing settled on the basis of an arbitral nsteadof ajudicial decision. Arbitration n Israel is a formal, structuredprocedureregu-lated by a 1968 law. Provided that the parties sign a binding undertakingtoaccept any decision, the judge listens to the claims of both sides and drafts a

44


22/28


settlement based on equity rather hanthe strict letter of the law. Thejudge orarbitrators supposed to meet the parties separately,but informally,a judgemay bringthe disputants ogetherin his chambers ate in the proceedings,in anattemptto secure theirvoluntarycompliancewith a compromise.Thus borerutis notjust ajudgmentbut also may include a traceof supervised negotiationatthe final stage. Among secularJews, the arbitrators almostalways ajudge, butamong Orthodox Jews, a respected rabbi acceptable to both parties will bechosen. Mediation is hardlyresorted to other thanin business and the fledglingADR movement.Hebrew has variousrevealingwords for the outcomeof conflict resolution."Toresolve a conflict"is leyashevsichsuch,whereleyashev,just as in English,literally means settle or arrange.Leyashevcan also mean reconciling contra-dictorytextual interpretationsor legal principles, furtheremphasizingthe tex-tual motif in the Hebrew discourse of conflict resolution.An arbitralawardispshara, which is also the term for "compromise." t is therefore built into thevery concept of a settlement that it will necessarilyentail compromise.It is hard to translate"reconciliation," he restorationof harmonious rela-tions, into Hebrew. Tshuva iterally means "a return to God following repen-tance" and is never used to describe relations between people. One possiblecandidate for humanreconciliation is simply shalom, meaning "peace,""har-mony," "tranquillity," nd"greetings,"but also evoking the ideas of safety andcompleteness.Reconciliation of a marriedcouple would be translatedas shlombayit (domesticpeace) from the associative form of shalom. When two formerrivals make up after a dispute this can be translated as hashlama, "makingwhole," also associated with shalom.Shalomis a polysemic wordin Hebrew with multiple meanings.At a mun-dane level, it is used much more frequentlythan "peace"since it crops up inmost conversations as a greetingor inquiryafter a person'swell-being. In addi-tion to the idea of domestic and internationalharmonyand welfare, in inter-national relations, shalom combines two seeming opposites-security and apeace of the prophets.Thus shalom turns up in the language of the militarycommunique:"F-16jets carriedout raids on Hizbullahtargets n SouthernLeb-anon this afternoon.All planes returned n shalom to base." "Inshalom"heremeans "safely,"not "in peace." At a more elevated level, shalom also com-monly conveys the ideal associations of a messianic age found in the Biblicalbooks of Isaiah andAmos.Another word sometimes used for reconciliation is piyus, implying a dissi-pation of anger and tension by placating an aggrieved adversary.Piyus, likeother conflict resolution words, is found in the Talmud,where it contains thenotion of comfort, consolation, or apology. Butpiyus is much less frequentlyused in Hebrew than"reconciliation" s in English.It is also one-sided andmaypossess connotationsof appeasement,a futile and dishonorableattemptto buyoff an aggressor.Hitpysut s reciprocalbutrarelyused. In the final analysis,we

45


23/28

RaymondCohen

would notusuallychoose anyof thewords mentionedabove in everydayspeech,preferring nstead the ubiquitoustermpshara for compromise,settlement of adispute. It is taken for grantedthat life can then return to normal,a state ofaffairsthathas in fact no special label.CONCLUSION: AN EXAMPLEEnough has been written here to demonstrate he general point that differentlanguages-with theirvariousreligious,historical,andculturalbackgrounds-configureconflict resolutionin diverse ways. The English-languagediscourseof conflict resolution is not a universally applicable metaparadigm hat tran-scends culture.If Arabic were the global language, diplomatswould speakandthink about conflict and conflict resolutiondifferently.Conciliation would fol-low the methods of the ArabLeague rather han those of the Atlantic Allianceor EuropeanUnion.As long as conflict resolution remains confined within a given tradition,anomalies and contradictionsacrosslanguagescan be safely overlooked.Theybecome relevantonly when conflict resolution is attemptedacrossparadigms,which is increasinglythe case in multicultural ocieties andcontemporarynter-national affairs. Syrian-Israelirelations in the Hafiz al-Assad period were anoutstandingcase of the confrontationof inconsistent versions. Following theMadridConferencein 1991, both sides committed themselves irrevocablytomaking peace. Yet negotiationsthroughthe good offices of the United Statesdraggedon for a decade.A fundamentalproblemwas the confrontationof principledas opposed topragmaticethics of conflict resolution.In almostevery statementor broadcaston thepeacenegotiations, Syriansreiterate heir attachment o principles.In thewordsof Defense Minister MustafaTlas: "Wehave firmprinciples.We do notforfeit any of our rights. . .. The peace decision is a strategic decision. Yet thisdoes not mean a concession of basic principles."34Principles,mabadiin Ara-bic (from bad', meaning "beginning"or "start"),are the necessary startingpoint,basis, or foundationof Syria's positionin the negotiations.As definedbySyrianForeignMinisterFaruqal-Shar',they can be summarizedas "Theland,dignity, and our rights."35These are irreduciblecategorical imperativesandnot rhetoricalslogans as Israelisperceive them. "Syriawould not compromiseits honorby relinquishingeven one inch of its land."36

34BBC,Summaryof WorldBroadcasts (SWB),August 3, 1995.35ForeignBroadcastInformationService-Near East and SouthAsia (FBIS-NES),January20, 2000.36SWB. November 30. 1994.

46


24/28


It is common sense to Israelis thatnegotiationsanchored n absoluteprin-ciples cannotgo anywhere.Since it is assumed that conflicts must end in com-promise,pshara, "principleddebate"is seen as a sure recipe for immobility.From the Israeliperspective,the highest ethics in the resolution of conflict areforthright argumentand a pragmatic willingness to compromise ("give andtake").There is little interest n a disputationoverprinciples,ekronot,a conceptwith theological and philosophical associations. Debating the foundationsofbelief seems fruitless andcounterproductiven what is perceivedas a practicalpolitical discussion.As talksproceed, negotiatorsareexpectedto stand firmon"vital interests." Rather than a philosophical point of departure,these are aconcrete bottomline, below whichnegotiatorscannotmakeconcessions, whichis a very differentway of looking at things. Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barakreferredto "vital interests"five times in an interviewfollowing the failure ofthe crucial summit between PresidentBill Clinton and SyrianPresident Hafizal-Assad n Geneva on March26, 2000.37 He meantsatisfactory ecurityarrange-ments andprotectionof Israel's watersupply,not abstractprinciples.In Arabic discourse, it is the neglect of principles that offends commonsense. A formerEgyptian ambassadorto the United States explained that inspeakingaboutAmericanculture to Egyptianaudiences,he could find no Ara-bic word for "pragmatism."8For PresidentAssad, the only obstacle to peacewas Israel's refusal to accepthis principled,utterly ogical position:"The Israe-lis are obstructive.They do not seek a genuine peace between equals. Whileeveryone wants his legitimateinterests,they want their-or whatthey deem tobe their-interests, be they legitimate or illegitimate. While they want theirdignity preserved,they want the other'sdignity lost."39The principled-pragmaticdichotomygeneratedan interminableandincon-clusive peace process in which Syriawas especially unwilling to negotiatetheterritorial ssue. At the Geneva summit,Clinton communicatedto Assad Bar-ak's readiness to withdrawfrom the Golan Heights to the 1923 internationalboundarybutnot to the militaryline of control of June4, 1967. Israel declinedto concede to Syria riparian ightsto the Sea of Galilee,based on land seized bySyriabefore 1967 beyondthe internationalboundary.An enragedAssad simplyrefusedto negotiateon this basis. Following the meeting, Clintonacidly com-mented,"Theball's in his [Assad's] courtnow, andI'm going to look forwardto hearingfrom him."40 He explainedthatonce Assad had heard the details of

37SWB,March28, 2000.38AbdelRaoufEl Reedy,"Reflection n AmericanNegotiatingBehavior"; aperpresentedat UnitedStates Instituteof Peace Conference n AmericanNegotiatingBehavior,WyePlantation,uly25, 2000.39SWB,December 3, 1994.40BBCWorldNews, March29, 2000.

47


25/28

RaymondCohen

the Israeli peace proposals, it was not enough for him to reject them out ofhand,buthe was boundto come upwith a "specificandcomprehensiveresponseon all the issues." Clintonadded,"Ifwe're going to have a negotiation,I don'tthink it's enoughto say,I don't like your position, come back and see me whenI like your position.... It takes two people coming up with ideas-or threesides, in this case, if we arebeing askedto mediate it."41ThisclearlystatedAmerican(andIsraeli)procedural xpectations hatnego-tiations were to be conductedon the basis of give and take and a willingness tocompromise.Syriadid not share this assumption.Assad felt boundto reiteratehis original principledpositionbecause to putforwarda counterproposalwouldhave been to agreeto bargainaway irreduciblesacredprinciples.Failure of theGeneva summitplungedthe peace process into protracteddeadlock.

As Clintonhints, Syria and Israel also lacked a common understandingofthe roleof the Americanmediator.nthe Israeli radition mediator,hemetavech,plays a role analogousto that of anintermediaryn a business transactionand iscertainly not envisaged as imposing a judgment on the disputants. ItamarRabinovich,chief Israelinegotiatorwith Syriafrom 1992to 1995,believed thatit was "difficult to envisage a deal being completedwithoutthe United States.ButI thinkwe feel very stronglythat there also needs to be an elementin whichthe matchmaker eaves the room, leaving the would-be groom and bride forthemselves for a few minutes to decide whetherthey want to live togetherforthe next x years."42Barakwent even further,suggestingthat "the U.S.'s mostuseful role mightbe to step back and not be involved day to day,hourby hour,in Israel'sdiscussionswith its neighborsand adversaries."This conceptionwascompatiblebut not identical with the more activistAmericanview of mediationas "facilitation"-"a position where the partieswould be negotiating,and wewould help."43Neitherconceptionwent far enough for Syria. In the tahkimlwasata radi-tion, the internationalmediator s not expectedto facilitate a negotiation,buttocome up with an offer that cannot be refused. Indeed, almost all serious dis-agreementsbetween Arab states are resolved throughthe good offices of awasit. As Lebanese Foreign Minister Faris Buwayz said in 1997, when talkswere at an impasse, "The United States is required o return o play the role ofimpartialbroker.In other words, to act as an arbiterto implementwhat wasagreedin Madrid[in 1991]."44 Inpractice,this meantcompellingIsraeliPrime

41WhiteHousePressConference,March29, 2000.42Itamar abinovich'semarkso Washingtonnstituteor NearEastPolicy,June21, 1995.43WhiteHousebackground riefingby senioradministrationfficial,December14, 1999.44FBIS-NES. October 1. 1997.

48


26/28


MinisterBenjaminNetanyahuto acceptwithdrawal o the June4, 1967, line ofcontrol. When Assad came to meet Clinton in Geneva, he expected him topresentan American arbitraldecision, not to pass on an Israeliproposal.A thirdprofoundcontradictionbetween the Israeli and Syrian paradigmsconcerned the natureof peace and reconciliation. Since the parties could notagree on the objective of the entire exercise, this made it highly problematicfrom the start. Syria's conception of peace was derived from the formalisticidea of salam, a contractualagreementbetween statesputtingan end to a stateof war and establishing diplomatic relations between them. Salam is distin-guished from the key conflict resolution notion of sulh, which is a reconcilia-tion between communitiesandpeoples,afterwhichtheylive together nharmony.Throughout he peace negotiations, Syrianeverconcealed its distastefor deal-

ing withIsrael or its insistenceon minimizingcontact even after the conclusionof a peace treaty.In a revealing speech, Faruqal-Shar'presentedhis vision ofsalam: "It does notmean that we shall lay down our arms n peacetime .... Thesignificance of makingpeace in the future is to transform his conflict into apolitical, ideological, commercial,and economic conflict in which we may bein an advantageousposition."45Syria was at best offering cold state-to-statesalam, not warmpeople-to-peoplesulh.In inewiththeHebrew nterpretationf shalom,which ncorporatesothsalamandsulh,Israel ook it forgrantedhatpeacewithSyriawouldnaturally ntailmorethan a formalendto belligerencyand thebarebones of diplomaticrelations.Foralong time,Israelisentertained henotion,implicitin theconceptof shalom,thata peacetime relationshipwould be one of friendshipandharmony-an "expres-sion of affection,"as Uri Savirironicallynotes.46When it becameimpossibletomaintain his illusion anylonger,Israel fell backon its old idea of normalizatzia,a termadapted romtheEnglishinthe 1970s. Normalizationwas agoodwordbe-cause tperfectlyexpressed srael'swish fornormalcynits relationswith tsneigh-bors while reflectingthedeeplyheldassumption hatwhen a conflict is resolved,thereis a return o a normalstateof relations. It didnotrequire"reconciliation,"an idea for which Hebrew has no exact equivalentat the communal level. Nor-malization would include embassies, obviously, but it would also include bor-dersopento people andgoods. PrimeMinister Shimon PeresandUri Savir alsoenvisagedcommunicationandtransportinks;cooperationnthedevelopmentofenergy,water,androads;andmultilateral egionaleconomicties, as well as tour-ism andthejoint developmentof the Golan.47

45Al-SafirBeirut),February 1,2000.46UriSavir,TheProcess(New York:RandomHouse,1998),p. 272. The authorreplaced tamarRabinovichas chief Israelinegotiatorwith Syriain January1996underPrimeMinisterShimonPeres.47Ibid.,p. 274.

49


27/28

RaymondCohen

From the beginning the Syrians were distressed by the term "normaliza-tion," which they categorically refused to accept. "Wedo not like the wordnormalization"tatbi'), Faruqal-Shar' admitted."We would ratherreferto theordinarypeace relations" 'alaqat salam 'adiyah).48 n the January2000 Shep-herdstownpeace talks, Syriannegotiators fought tooth and nail to ensure thatfutureties with Israel be conducted in a committee of normalpeaceful rela-tions, not normalization.49There has been conjecturethat Syria disliked theidea of normalizationbecausetatbi' is associatedwiththetamingorbreaking-inof a domestic animal.By implication,tatbi' would entailthe forced submissionof Syria to Israel's will. Throughoutthe negotiations, Syria was deeply con-cerned to prevent a settlement that would extend Israeli influence over theBilad al-Sham,the historical lands of GreaterSyria, or bestow "special privi-leges" on Israel.50By ordinary('adiyah), Syria meant official but minimal.'Adiyah s the termappliedto Iraq-Iranrelations.51The correctconclusion to draw from this brief survey is not that semanticdissonance rules out conflict resolution;rather it complicates and delays analreadydifficult exercise. The very point of linguistic-culturalanalysis is toalertthe partiesat anearlystageto the presenceof richpointsof incomprehen-sion. In this way, they can avoid the worst contradictionsand constructbridg-ing mechanismsto overcomeothers.It is also up to the third-partymediatortomap out areasof dissonance and guide the rivals throughthe semantic mine-field. Since the UnitedStatesis often thatmediator, t is essential thatAmericanpractitionersand scholars cultivate linguistic self-consciousness and foreignlanguagecompetence.There have been some encouragingsuccesses. One of the most notable inrecent years derived from the compatibilitybetween the Hebrew and Arabicconcepts of "apology,"slicha and 'afw respectively.In March 1997, a Jorda-nian soldier opened fire on a party of Israeli schoolgirls visiting the naturereserve of Naharayimon the JordanRiver,killing seven andwoundingsix. TheatrocityplungedJordanian-Israelielations ntodeepcrisis. IsraeliForeignMin-ister DavidLevy reactedto Jordan'sofficial expressionof condolences withthepronouncement,"Therecan be no forgiveness, no absolution,"drawing uponliturgicaltermsused on the Day of Atonement.To defuse the crisis and restoreharmony o relationsbetweenthe two coun-tries, King Hussein and his brotherPrince Hassan evoked consonantMuslimand Jewish traditions.Levy meant that there are some deeds only God can

48FBIS-NES,November 20, 1995.49JamesP.Rubin,StateDepartmentriefingon ShepherdstowneaceTalks,Jan-uary5, 2000.50TheBilad al-Sham ncludesSyria,Palestine, ordan,Lebanon, ndIraq.51FBIS-NES,uly23, 1996.

50


28/28


forgive. But in the Jewishtradition,a penitentcanbeg man andGod forpardon(slicha). So, too, in the Muslim traditionof 'afw.Immediatelyflying to the sitein militaryuniform,Prince Hassan symbolically acknowledged responsibilityfor the episode. He told the Israeli defense ministerthat he was "deeplyshamedby what has happenedhere."52Both religions also share the custom of the tent or mourningbooth, wherevisitors comfort grieving relatives.53Cutting short a state visit to Spain andpostponing a meeting with PresidentClinton, King Hussein flew straighttoIsrael.Accompaniedby two of his children, stressing that he was a father aswell as a king, Hussein visited the homes of bereavedparents.He made "thegrim rounds from one grief-strickenhome to the next, shaking the hands ofrelatives,embracingandkissing some, andofferingwords of sympathy n Ara-bic andEnglish." Findingthe families seatedon the floor in ritualmourning,heknelt next to them. "I feel that I've lost a child," he told one bereavedfather."AndI feel thatif there is anythingleft in life, it will be spentto insure that allthe children enjoy the kind of peace and security that we never had in ourtimes."54

King Hussein'svisit broughtsome hope to a situationof profoundgrief anddepression.An ordinaryIsraeliwas quotedas saying, "Iwas very moved, evento tears. This is such a noble man.A special person.When he knelt before thosepeople, you could see the sadness in his eyes. He is simply human,a humanbeing."55

52 WashingtonPost, March14, 1997.53Moreprecisely, hemourning ooth s customary mongYemenite ews. OtherJewishcommunities it on low stools or on the ground or sevendaysof mourninginsidethefamilyhome.

51

Documents

Language and Conflict Resolution