The Arab-Israeli conflict clearly cannot be solved in a short amount of time. It has a history with a complex set of intricacies that continue to play a part in the conflict. There is no simple solution to solve this enormous international problem. Conflict transformation is not about simple solutions. It is about opening new dimensions and possibilities to work towards positive goals. Conflict transformation is in essence idealistic, yet this is its strength. It does not accept the traditional ways conflicts are settled. As Gultung points out it sets out to transcend them. These traditional methods have to some extent been tested on the Middle East conflict. This paper therefore reasons that conflict transformation is a much more positive approach that may be harder to implement, yet has the potential to achieve greater goals and bring about a truly just peace in the Middle East.

structuring ways of looking at conflict in order to transform conflict into a positive force. A brief summary of the Arab-Israeli conflict that attempts to be neutral shall first be given to show some of the complexities of this conflict. This will then be countered with conflict transformation theories that will show how they can be used to create a just peace to this long conflict. Owing to the confines of this paper an emphasis will be on the Palestinians on the Arab side.

Another theory offering an alternative transformation is that of Fisher and Ury. This theory is also built around breaking down traditional notions of conflict resolution (Fisher and Ury in Barash, 2000). Like Burton’s theory it works on the idea that conflict resolution can succeed when both parties are investing their time in working as partners to resolve a conflict between them. In going into conflict resolution Fisher and Ury feel both parties want a resolution, that they would prefer to reach a settlement rather then continue arguing. Negotiation is inherent in humans yet it remains a complex and difficult task to undertake in the face of the complexities of international conflict. Fisher and Ury point out the extremes of negotiation hard and soft. Hard negotiation involves taking a position and refusing to move from it. Soft negotiation involves making too many concessions from the original position. Hard and soft negotiation involve a form of positional bargaining. Fisher and Ury instead argue for principled negotiation. Essentially this aim to bypass the conflict inefficiencies of positional bargaining. Firstly it aims at making the participants problem solvers rather then adversaries. Rather then taking positions it then focus’s on what Fisher and Ury call interests yet perhaps fall closer to Burtons needs theories without being as clearly defined. Following this options are drawn up by both sides working together for mutual gain and finally an object criteria is drawn up. Fisher and Ury’s theories are virtually an extension of Burton’s yet they are far less clearly defined and look to work at building an interplay between the conflicting sides. Fisher therefore also points to the need for an experienced facilitator who is able to build up this connection and use it to find a solution. (Fisher, 1997) In the context of the Arab-Israeli conflict this is also a theory that could be effective. So many of the negotiations between Arab and Israeli have involved the use of hard bargaining which has led to countless breakdowns and even war. This theory relies more on personal relationship building. Return to the question of slow Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank bringing a Palestinian and an Israeli together to discuss this would be difficult. Yet the very fact of getting those together means that they usually are looking for a resolution. This is where an excellent facilitator would be needed to help break down some of the barriers to separate the people from the problem. In creating an environment Palestinian and Israeli’s could together discuss unde

Some topics in this essay:
Statement Violence, Middle East, Fisher Ury, Tschudi Christe, Fisher Ury’s, Israel Jones, Palestinian Israeli’s, West Bank, Palestinian United, Arabs Israeli’s, conflict resolution, arab-israeli conflict, conflict transformation, middle east, occupied territories, fisher ury, west bank, prime minister, role defense, suez canal, peace middle east, israeli prime minister, control role defense, withdraw occupied territories, attention palestinian cause,