Conflict resolution is one of the most powerful ways of making positive contribution to the field of international relations. Conflict, be it behavioural or based on attitude, is currently creating grave world inequalities and furthering deep rooted problems. Conflict resolution sets out to provide lasting just solutions to these often seemingly endless problems and lay the ground for a lasting peace. In the twenty first century one longstanding international dispute that continues is the known as the Middle East Conflict or the Arab-Israeli Conflict. This essentially is conflict over land between the Jewish and Arab peoples and has been in crises for nearly a hundred years, yet has roots that go back to ancient civilisations. The establishment of the Israeli state in 1948 has created a serge of violence in the Middle East and displaced the Palestinian people. Both sides lay claim to this land. Attempts at solving this conflict have been made with little success. This paper therefore will argue that new attempts to solve the Arab-Israeli conflict need to be made through a conflict resolution practice known as conflict transformation. This is practiced by Burton, Fisher and Ury and Galtung a

mongst others. Essentially it involves restructuring 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.

It is clear from the above description that the Arab-Israeli conflict is an enormous far reaching problem. In its long history it has disrupted the lives of millions of people by involving large sections of the Middle East and some of the world’s strongest military and economic powers. Finding peace in Middle East seems increasingly more difficult in the face of terror attacks from both sides. Peace, perhaps in its most simple sense has existed in the Middle East. Barash defines peace as an absence of war. (Barash,1991) Clearly there have been periods of time in this conflicts history in which wars were not fought on a large scale yet life for the Arabs and Israeli’s was hardly a peaceful one. Any single day were violence was absent could be called a peaceful day in this sense. Galtung has split peace into two sides. Negative peace refers to Barash’s most simple definition of peace, as an absence of war. Yet Galtung also put forward positive peace which is when just and equitable conditions are created with the elimination of inequitable social structures. (Galtung, 1996) This fits many feminist interpretations of peace. (Brock-Utne,1990) Violence then occurs when human beings are influenced so their actions are below their potential relisations. This does pose some problems as it would suggest that there has never been a state totally at positive as owing to human nature it would be near impossible. Reardon has attempted a less definite definition of positive peace calling it the assurance of human rights. (Reardon in Smoker et al,1990) This of course also raises the question of who defines human rights. Despite these problems Gultung and Reardon’s definitions are not an absoloute goal that needs to be satisfied. Rather they are a direction pointing to a change in attitude to peace with greater long-term goals that reach further. In this capacity it is safe to say that the Middle East has for the last fifty years experienced positive peace less so then a country like Australia. In this way we are getting to the centre of the Arab-Israeli conflict. Gultung goes further when he discusses cultural violence. Cultural violence refers to aspects of culture such as art, religion, ideology or science that are used to justify direct and structural violence. (Galtung, 1990) Jeong defines direct violence as physical, verbal or psychological abuse or infliction of pain and structural violence as uneven life chances, inequitable distribution of sources and unequal decision making power. (Jeong, 1999) This gets to the very heart of the Arab-Israeli problem. Cultural violence occurs when the Judaism or Islam is used to cause direct or structural violence. It is used when the Israeli government creates an inequality between Arabs and Jews. It is used when a violent ideology is promoted amongst Palestinian groups. It is used when the United States provides weapons for Israel to commit directly violent and structurally violent acts. Schirch has furthered this argument by adding secondary violence. (Schirch,2002) This is direct violence caused as a result of structural violence. For example Palestinian youths growing up in refugee camps with little hope of a real life chance may commit an act of terrorism. A conflict resolution for this conflict must be far reaching and for the benefit of all. It must meet Sanson and Bretherton’s definition that it should end oppression and meet all human needs. Sansom and Bretherton

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, arab-israeli conflict, conflict resolution, conflict transformation, middle east, occupied territories, fisher ury, west bank, prime minister, suez canal, burton’s theory, peace middle east, israeli prime minister, control role defense, withdraw occupied territories, conflict conflict resolution,