Israeli Credibility & World Peace?

WORLD PEACE.

It’s not a joke. And I’d like to make perfectly clear that believing in the possibility of attaining world peace does not make one naïve, or uneducated, or Miss America. [You may recall the 2007 Miss Teen USAYouTube blitz thanks to a memorable answer from Miss South Carolina circulated in a clip].

It does suggest a certain present idealism – a quality I proudly possess. But most importantly, the belief in world peace stems from a rational argument that takes into account both problems in the past, as well as changes in the present and future.

I will be describing the above ‘rational argument’ in more detail later in this post, and in great depth in a post in the coming weeks.

What I would like to consider here is an example that caught my attention this afternoon as I watched my TiVo-ed episode of Amanpour on CNN (2.28.10 at 11 a.m. PST). The Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak was being questioned regarding Israel’s credibility given the decades of fruitless negotiation processes and continued hostility between Israelis and Arabs.

(photo courtesy of: http://amanpour.blogs.cnn.com/2010/02/28/israeli-defense-minister-ehud-barak/)

I do NOT want to divulge into an analytical appraisal of who bears responsibility for the continuing – seemingly never-ending – Arab-Israeli conflict. Rather, I would like to consider what would be reasonably possible in an ideal world for the conflict to reach a settlement of lasting (even indefinite) peace.

However, in order to rationally consider the solution, we must first consider the problem(s) at hand. While there are many issues/subjects of contention in the Arab-Israeli conflict, if the conflict is considered holistically, one finds that the conflict stems from incompatibilities due to (deeply-rooted) emotional responses of the respective sides towards one another. Although emotions and their consequent policy preferences are not identical throughout the respective populaces, both sides feel that it is absolutely non-negotiable that their ‘national’ interests be met, and these respective interests conflict.

It must be noted that what I mean here by national interests are the terms that would satisfy each side’s national goals. However, the national interest – meaning what is in the interest of the nation for its survival – of each side is not inherently in conflict with one another.

It is in this distinction that the solution can be found: a negotiated peace in which both sides must be able to protect their own national interest. This requires both sides to minimize their respective emotions historically associated with the conflict, which lead to the incompatible terms of settlement/interests. In essence, both sides have to get over their pride and must stop trying to use guerilla force to manipulate their strategic advantage at various events of negotiation.

So why is the discussion of Israeli credibility so important?

Credibility is a mark of international reputation. It is a foreign preoccupation of all governments, although by varying standards.

Israel’s credibility has been called into question due to a lack of progress toward a peaceful settlement of the Arab-Israeli conflict. What I’d like to emphasize here is that this news coverage demonstrates two conditions of the new world context. First, it shows the power of the media to focus ‘news’ on their intended messages. This has been the subject of several communications theories, such as Agenda Setting Theory and Robert Entman’s theory (see “Editorial Reviews”) of cascading information frames (more on this in the forthcoming post).

Second, the news coverage demonstrates how the international community can pressure states to ‘behave’by acknowledging and adhering to internationally accepted rules of law. The Israeli Defense Minister continued to emphasize Israel’s continued to commitment to a negotiated settlement for lasting peace.

His claim that change is still possible despite decades of deadlock, however, was not received by the interviewer (U.S domestic public opinion polls identify similar feelings). This is due to the contradiction between this position and Israel’s aggressive actions; whether or not these actions were employed in defense is irrelevant. What is significant is that – insofar as the interviewer represents the characteristics of a national public – the interviewer’s extensive attempts to get Barak to comment on recently suspected-Israeli military operations demonstrate how the news media has become a commentary rather than an informant.

While the traditional role of the news media has been to inform the public so that they can draw their own conclusions and opinions from this information, a commentary implies an opinion is drawn from facts. As the news media is now deducing and reporting its own opinions, it is acting as a biased agent of the public, rather than a structural agent of the state.

Given this discussion of Israeli credibility, we must acknowledge need for new analytical perspective to conflicts. (This will be the subject of a post soon to follow that will demonstrate the need for new behavior from the media, publics, and governments).

So what lessons can we draw from this discussion? I believe that it demonstrates underlying emotional perceptions that have prevented tangible although hypothetical peaceful resolutions of conflict.

Is this too optimistic? Only time will tell…