The Middle East and the Theory of Conflict

Abstract

Listen

Translate article

In this article we shall use some fragments from general theories of conflict to analyze the Arab-Israeli conflict in the Middle East. We are painfully aware of the limitations of any such approach, and of the shortcomings of our results for no coherent, general theory of conflict exists. And if it did exist, it is hard to see how it could steer clear of the major difficulty also found in the legalistic approach to conflict: a heavy orientaltion towards the past. Any body of thought on conflict descriptions, predictions and prescriptions will have to be based on certain preconceived ideas or paradigms that a real conflict, cut out of live, creative human reality, may transcend. Thus, in an effort to confront the Middle East situation and the theories of conflict with each other, certainly the latter could benefit most. Basic in this connection is the search for a language in Wh4ich the conflict can be formulated. An adequalte language of conflict would permit the formulation not only of the goals and interests of the parties and of the incompatibilities, but also of solutions that cannot easily be arrived at in ordinary language. For thait reason, the conflict language should broaden the concepit of reality, expanding it by bringing in possibilities that would belong to potential rather than empirical reality. On purpose, we use the term language here: a solution adequately formulated in a language of conflidt theory is, of course, a paper solution and not the same as a real life solution. An adequately formulated soluition is neither {a sufficient, nor a necessary condition for a real life solution. But the search for it is nonetheless significant, particularly if one is concerned both with the conflict in the Middle East affecting directly millions of people, and indirectly the whole world and with the general theory of conflict. The process of solution, however, will have to be in the hands of the participants themselves.l