I expect a difficulty in the situation being discussed is finding a mediator who is genuinely objective. Any nominations? I'd think most people (certainly soon to be Secretary of State Hilary Clinton) will at least be perceived to hold bias by one or both sides.
I agree, the chances of getting a jointly acceptable facilitator to facilitate the Problem Solving method to get the best long term outcome for both party's is a bit remote.
I think for the most part the US, France and others have tried to be the mediator and continue to try the Compromise approach at least in the first instance.
Whiskers, I'm not sure that 'conflict resolution' as a tool is a "one size fits all" sort of instrument. I don't know the context of the conflict resolution training you've had, but I'd suggest a workplace model, e.g. wouldn't necessarily be the perfect for mediation between warring countries.
Yeah, you’re right there. A workplace model involves a hierarchy of responsibility and authority. Similarly a Family (Law) model would not be best because that involves a lot of regulatory guide lines and laws that largely determine the outcome even in mediation and especially in the final adjudication.
Since this is a conflict involving countries the law is rather secondary as the law can be rewritten by these party’s upon resolution of the problem. For me the aim of the international community aught to be focused on international acceptable behaviour at the personal (societal) level in the short term to facilitate an environment to generate some goodwill and trust.
What I’ve been proposing is The Problem Solving method, what I and my tutors believe is a process that has the potential to give the best possible outcome for both party’s. It’s essentially three main methods/processes that the facilitator judges best suited at any given time;
- A Planning Process which starts off with the Vision, (establishing practical vision/goals), Obstacles, Strategic Directions and Action Plans.
- A Workshop Method. It’s segments include Setting the Context, Brainstorming, maybe smaller group discussion for larger groups, a Discerning the Consensus and Reflective segments.
- A Focused Discussion Method, that involves four main segments, an Objective, Reflective, Interpretive and Decisional segment.
The role of the Facilitator is largely to propose the steps to work out the issues, confirm them and help put them into application. The participants put forward all the issues and suggestions. The facilitator basically addresses the personality issues such as shy quiet people and loud aggressive types to keep a balanced focused dialogue going and basically keep the process originally agreed upon on track including any adjustments for new issues that may come up.
'Mediation' is probably the most common approach to conflict resolution in our society, pretty much an offshoot of the foundation of our
adversarial justice system and typically involves Compromise, Conciliation and or Adjudication, consequently it’s often difficult for people to get their heads fully around the Problem Solving Method.
The diagram sets out the basics of the different methods. Very briefly;
- Avoidance - is used by people who lack the willingness to face the issues and reduces their ability to affect outcomes,
- Accommodation - involves sacrificing your needs to appease the other party,
- Compromise - basically is splitting the difference, only partial solutions,
- Competition - is winner takes all. Useful if someone is trying to take unfair advantage but reduces chances of future cooperation.
- Problem Solving - requires good quality dialogue to generate creative ideas to meet the concerns and needs of both party’s, a true win- win solution.
The other essential aspect of the Problem Solving approach is dialogue. It simply cannot work if debate is allowed. Some comparrisons:
- In Dialogue finding common ground is the goal.
In Debate winning is the goal.
- Dialogue calls for temporarily suspending one’s beliefs
Debate calls for investing wholeheartedly in one’s beliefs.
- Dialogue searches for basic agreement.
Debate searches for glaring differences.
So that’s the idealist theory, but as I mentioned earlier it may just be that with both Israel and Hamas claiming they are close to victory and neither accepting the UN ceasefire request, that the Competition mode may decide the issue.
I think Israel would entertain dialogue again if Hamas would just stop firing all those rockets indiscriminately into Israel. For me that behaviour wasn’t achieving anything positive for the palastines, just inflaming Israel more. I’d like to see if the Palastine people agree with Abass in considering a ceasefire and talks or endorse Hamas’s tactics and totally rule out a ceasefire and talks.
As I say, my starting point is aiming high for the best possible outcome and it may well be that a lesser quality process may have to surfice if they ever come to the discussion table again. What do you think it would take for both party’s to come to the discussion table again?
Or should we be entertaining the notion of a third and fourth party's, some independant representation of the average Palastine and Israeli people, what we call community input or consultitive councils, to get a true Problem Solving method?