Boasson's Version of Conflict Theory and the Middle East: Apologia Sua or Peace Research?

Abstract

How would one expect a brilliant, well-read, experienced author in law and peace/conflict research, but also himself deeply involved and committed in one of the present world's most intractable conflicts to put his case? Everybody knows that there are (at least) double claims to territory in the Middle East, and also on the form of social control inside that territory. There is no denying that there is a seemingly unending chain of events rampant with conflict attitude and conflict behavior, and that the Arab side persists in denying the legitimacy of the Jewish claims in connection with Israel. How does one deal with this, at Boasson's level of discourse, considerably above-standard Israeli self-presentation? Off-hand one would see two major intellectual strategies, no doubt engaged in because they are sincerely believed in not as handy weapons chosen ad hoc for an intellectual dispute. One of these would be to draw a distinction between conflict attitude/behavior (called 'the tension approach' by Boasson) and 'conflict as incompatibility', and claim that the former does not necessarily imply the existence of the latter (or vice versa). This is trivial, and exactly the purpose of the conflict triangle (Fig. 3, p. 182) in my own article. But Boasson goes further and indicates, very clearly and very often, that in this particular case, conflict attitude/behavior should rather be seen as the outcome of 'the party's dormant conflict residues and its propensity to hostility', not to mention 'the possible frustrations suffered by this party' (such as rank disequilibrium and rank dissatisfaction). Morever, it is not enough to consider the parties in any narrow context of space and time: 'in every conflict, both very remote and more close, related factors do exercise an influence', and 'conflict must be researched and analyzed against the background of the total system in which it occurs'. I doubt that anyone could possibly object to such excellent but highly trivial principles. Social reality is always 'more complicated than that', and there is no end to the chains of relevance. But what I strongly object to in Boasson's approach is what seems an intellectual smoke-screen technique, whipping up all kinds of additional factors so as to make the single basic incompatibility recede into the background. Characteristic is the use of the term 'frustration'. Arabs are aggressive because they are frustrated, not because a territory originally populated almost exclusively by Arabs is now under the control of somebody else which is more or less what Boasson tries to tell us. The persistence of Arab violence has to be explained away: it must not be seen as originating in a just cause, it must be seen as something Arabs would have done anyhow, because of 'dormant conflict residues' and 'propensity to hostility'. Frankly speaking, this sounds like arguing that poor peasants revolt only because they are frustrated by their poverty not because of the land-owner and the total structure. However, Boasson is quite aware that this is not going to do the trick, so there is a second strategy available: assuming that there is an incompatibility of claims, denying the legitimacy of the Arab claim and reinforcing the leigitimacy of the Jewish side. This can then be done in countless ways, and it is at this point that either side (or all sides) in the Middle East has produced 'experts' in great quantities, and will continue producing them. Boasson is one of them; it so happens that I am acquainted with the particular literature he feels should have influenced me more (it did not); but I am not convinced that this is the