Introduction
Teaching about war and peace in the Middle East, South Asia, and the
Islamic world has perhaps never been more difficult, discouraging, and
vital to American higher education. Student interest in these areas has
surged considerably in the wake of September 11th, the wars in
Afghanistan and Iraq, Indian-Pakistani nuclear brinkmanship, and renewed
Palestinian-Israeli violence. As teachers, we face daunting challenges
in devising constructive approaches to such controversial, highly
politicized, and emotionally charged issues. Traditional pedagogy may
not suffice, especially if it ignores the growing wellspring of student
energy and concern that—if tapped effectively—can be parlayed into
significant learning. Writing peace agreements is one way of winning
students' best efforts during the worst of times.
A focus on peace accords may seem inappropriate, premature, or even
belated for some contemporary conflicts. Ongoing Palestinian-Israeli
violence has followed the decade-long “peace process” of the 1990s,
transforming the landscape of relationships, attitudes, and interests.
But this assignment is directed less toward the process of conflict
resolution per se and more toward discerning the eventual
substantive outcome of future talks. While Palestinians and Israelis may
seem to have crossed the Rubicon toward permanent hostility, the very
nature of the conflict suggests that eventually they will find
themselves back at the negotiating table. Even if the latest talks fail,
students are poorly served by a wait-and-see response to the problems of
war and peace; now is the time for innovative thinking and teaching.
Accordingly, I have developed a constructive approach in which students
write comprehensive peace agreements tackling Palestinian-Israeli
relations, the entire Middle East, or the Pakistani-Indian conflict over
Kashmir. For non-area specialists, a scaled-down version of the
assignment might be suitable in introductory undergraduate international
relations courses. The approach could be adapted to any number of
conflicts, but it lends itself best to high-stakes disputes that are
longstanding, seemingly intractable, implicated in both domestic and
international politics, involving concerns over identity as well as
territory, and for which the major claims of both parties are well
defined and appear legitimate. By contrast, this approach would not be
suitable for amorphous, asymmetric conflicts (e.g., the “war on
terrorism”), for structural antagonisms that may not be fully resolvable
by negotiation (e.g., the Cold War), or if one side will not participate
in a negotiated settlement.
I designed the assignment specifically for two upper-level undergraduate
courses on the Middle East, which I taught at Brown University and
Williams College. The success of this approach was evident not just in
the students' enthusiastic comments and evaluations, but also in their
genuinely impressive achievements in completing the task itself. I am
sharing my experiences here because I suspect that relatively few
political scientists currently use this teaching method. I will show its
effectiveness by elaborating on four sets of benefits that were apparent
from my experiences, and by clarifying the assignment's underlying
rationale. Then I will offer some practical advice on how to develop
your own version, and how to modify it for various conflicts.
Benefits and Rationale
You can't fail us
First, writing peace agreements empowers and energizes students in
ways that more straightforward lectures, discussions, case studies,
and even role-playing or simulation cannot.1
For a valuable recent discussion of simulations, see
Beth K. Dougherty, “Byzantine Politics: Using Simulations to
Make Sense of the Middle East,” PS: Political Science
and Politics 36 (April 2003): 239–244.
Initial student reaction to the assignment invariably was one of
trepidation mixed with skeptical astonishment: “We have to come up
with
a solution to the conflict?!” But the difficulty of
the task is liberating, and ultimately it elicited the best efforts
of a great majority of students. Few dared to procrastinate in
tackling such a daunting project, and word got back to me that
students were talking about it with their friends and other
professors. With a little guidance and encouragement, their concern
soon turned into enthusiasm. In a counterintuitive sense, asking the
impossible takes some pressure off. As one student declared at the
outset, “You can't fail us if we fail this thing!”
Indeed, no one failed. The greatest difficulty that students
experienced was in balancing the incommensurable trade-offs inherent
in multifaceted negotiations. If Israel compromises on settlements,
for example, what exactly is that worth in terms of Palestinian
concessions on, say, a right of return? In making such judgments,
the most successful agreements avoided crossing political red lines
while forging connections among the dazzling array of issues. Not
surprisingly, students found that compromise on single, discrete
issues was much harder without linking these issues to others. A
trade-off on Israeli water rights and access, for example, could be
achieved more easily by associating it with Palestinian
sovereignty—at least in principle—over its subterranean natural
resources. A political division of Jerusalem, some found, was
untenable unless tied to carefully considered provisions to assure
freedom of movement and the protection of holy sites.
Active Engagement
Second, the assignment allows students to work through an enormously
complex set of material in an active, creative, and constructive
manner. They learn the nuts and bolts of the conflict. They decide
how all the details relate to a larger whole that they must devise
themselves, within the narrow confines of political reality. They
take charge of the substantive issues, detailing a vision of order
and justice that makes sense to them. They are empowered to make any
choices they deem necessary and wise, but are constrained by the
conflict's relatively fixed set of circumstances. Having a specific
purpose in mind helps students stay focused, gives them an
Archimedean point from which to approach the issues, and keeps them
from getting lost in a sea of unfamiliar names, places, and
events.
Ideally, the assignment should create a dynamic and multidimensional
learning process that requires students to master the substantive
issues and rearrange them in a manner sensitive to the hopes and
fears of both sides. In the Palestinian-Israeli context, most of the
negotiating issues have been on the table for over a decade, so
students have little difficulty identifying them and discerning the
basic positions of the major political actors. Admittedly, the
national consensus constraining or enabling a peace agreement has
shifted substantially on each side over the years, creating a moving
target of sorts. But rather than reading passively about how and why
earlier attempts at conflict resolution have failed, students are
responsible for imagining the conditions under which a new consensus
in both communities could form. Even if students get some of the
details wrong, they are sure to benefit from the effort.
Something for Everyone
Invariably, the assignment yielded a variety of final outcomes, as
students focused on different aspects of the peace agreement and
called on their own particular talents and inclinations. Some
students made hand-drawn maps, showing enormous artistic skill and
creativity. One geosciences major researched the underground
aquifers at the heart of bilateral water conflict. A young engineer
contemplated the design of a raised highway linking Gaza and the
West Bank. Another student—now working on Capitol Hill—took great
care to use the precise language of a well-crafted political
agreement. Indeed, there is something for everyone. Quite obviously,
the multifaceted nature of the conflict produces many stumbling
blocks to a peaceful resolution. Yet, this also increases the
likelihood that most students will find some aspect of it
sufficiently compelling to provoke or inspire a measure of dedicated
engagement.
To create viable peace agreements, students must also learn about a
host of related political concepts, ranging from the traditional
(sovereignty, the security dilemma, nationalism, party politics) to
more cutting-edge concerns (human security, refugee rights,
terrorism, the revolution in military affairs). At the outset, I
invoked the logic of two-level games to emphasize the cross-cutting
negotiating imperatives facing political leaders (Putnam 1988; Evans, Jacobson, and
Putnam 1993). All of this might seem overwhelming for
most undergraduates, but the potential payoff is enormous. Students
consistently reported that they came to a much better understanding
of concepts like Westphalian sovereignty after considering how to
enable or constrain the sovereignty of a fledgling Palestinian
state. Those with an interest in elections and party politics
benefited from grappling with the dilemmas facing Israeli coalition
governments. The exercise therefore proved remarkably useful in
helping students integrate conceptual abstractions with rich
historical materials.
The Art of the Possible
Finally, the assignment offers a much-needed antidote to the
pessimistic primordialism that tempts newcomers and non-specialists
in Middle East politics. Durable peace accords, by definition, must
satisfy the minimal demands of multiple constituencies. Successful
completion of the assignment came from accommodating such demands,
thereby channeling student efforts in politically constructive
directions. Ardent Zionists and devoted Palestinian nationalists
alike had to build a peace with the principal touchstone of
political sustainability. I told my students that the problem had
many conceivable solutions: a peace agreement is less like a jigsaw
puzzle and more like a tapestry. If politics is the art of the
possible, they had to weave together all the elements in a way that
would survive the acid test of political durability.
Of course, maintaining a future accord is not the same as achieving
it. Peace and conflict resolution, somewhat like democracy and
democratization, have distinct substantive and procedural
dimensions—the difference between what they are and how to get or
remain there. Some students struggled with the assignment's focus on
peace as an outcome or endpoint, wanting to introduce
process-oriented elements, such as the gradual building of trust
between the antagonists or the strict sequencing of issues on the
negotiating agenda. But imagining what the outcome would look like
at the conclusion of a successful peace process permitted
students to do what many negotiators in the Middle East have avoided
for years. They constructed a plausible and just peace, in all its
devilish details. This, in itself, was worth the price of
admission.
In the end, students took away from the assignment a sober awareness
of the difficulty of achieving peace. This is much needed by those
who trivialize the Arab-Israeli conflict by framing it in terms of
personal disagreements or reducing it to the playground antics of
disobedient children. Presumably, some of this learning will
translate into a general appreciation for the intractability of
other longstanding political disputes. That said, many students also
gained a surprising optimism about the possibilities for peace in
the Middle East. This is especially important for those who have
been taught that regional conflict is a product of inherent cultural
antagonism or “age-old” rivalry. Their optimism may not have been
entirely misplaced, but even if it was, this is less dangerous than
the cynical indifference that comes with writing off human
conflict.
A ‘How To’
Here are a few suggestions for how to make this assignment work.
1. Starting Out. Give students detailed written instructions and
some preliminary guidance regarding the substantive issues. Depending on
the course structure, you may want to discuss all the issues in class
while students work individually on the assignment. Avoid giving too
much specific advice or students will conclude that you have only one
solution in mind. Remind those students expressing highly partisan
perspectives of their obligation to anticipate the other side's
reaction. Play devil's advocate by echoing the most persuasive arguments
made by both sides.
2. Structure and Content. Include very specific minimum
requirements for addressing—one way or another—all the major bones of
contention between the parties. Insist that students break down their
agreements into manageable and appropriate subsections, reminding them
that this is not a conventional research paper or essay. For
Palestinian-Israeli relations, the most significant issues are as
follows:
- [bull ]Personal and national security
arrangements for both nationalities.
- [bull ]The status
of Jerusalem, including the Old City and religious
sites.
- [bull ]The status of Israeli settlements in the
West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem.
- [bull ]The
existence and location of bypass roads and
checkpoints.
- [bull ]The nature of sovereignty and its
constraints for both states.
- [bull ]Rights of return
for both nationalities.
- [bull ]Palestinian refugees in
the West Bank, Gaza, and neighboring states.
- [bull
]Water rights and usage.
- [bull ]Border demarcations,
airspace, and territorial access.
- [bull ]Israeli and
Palestinian military deployments and
limitations.
- [bull ]The status of political prisoners
and security detainees.
3. Assumptions and Hypothetical Scenarios. Lay out a set of
guiding assumptions relating to, for example, potential international
financial support to defray the costs of eventual implementation, the
extent and nature of American or U.N. involvement, and the state of
broader Arab-Israeli negotiations. You may wish to write a short,
future-oriented hypothetical scenario, putting aside current
negotiations if they are active. Even if what you devise is highly
improbable in certain ways, it is necessary to structure the larger
assignment. An abbreviated example is as follows: “It is May 2004, and
unprecedented violence between Israelis and Palestinians has led to a
renewed consensus on the desirability of resolution to the conflict. You
are the chief arbitrator of a newly constituted international body. You
have been empowered by the U.N. Security Council, the recently elected
government of Israel, and the reformed Palestinian National Authority to
devise a comprehensive, detailed, fair, and permanent solution to the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Propose such a solution in the form of a
peace agreement. The agreement will be submitted to both national
communities for full acceptance or rejection by referenda, without
modification or further negotiation. If it passes both referenda,
implementation will begin immediately.”
4. Guiding Criteria. Emphasize that peace agreements must a) be
satisfactory to an absolute majority of Israelis and Palestinians,
enabling both parties to sign on; b) anticipate all major objections and
criticisms—except those by irredentists and peace rejectionists on
either side; c) include creative but feasible solutions to these
objections. Remind students to focus on outcome over process; these are
peace agreements, not full-blown plans for implementing them.
5. Language and Style. Require that the agreements be written in
suitable language. Students should consult and emulate other peace
agreements in this regard, though my preference is to avoid excessively
technical or legalistic jargon in order to keep the focus on substantive
political concerns.2
Most of the relevant
prior agreements and U.N. Security Council resolutions are
contained in Charles D. Smith, Palestine and the
Arab-Israeli Conflict: A History with Documents, 4th
edition, (New York: Bedford/St. Martin's, 2001). Other relevant
items are available in the online appendix to William Quandt's
Peace Process: American Diplomacy and the Arab-Israeli
Conflict since 1967, Revised edition, (Washington,
D.C.: Brookings Institution Press and Berkeley: University of
California Press, 2001). See
www.brookings.edu/press/appendix/peace_process.htm.
Excellent maps and other peace accords are readily available online and
in standard reference materials.
3
6. Group Projects. Consider making this a group project, though
subject to all the usual disadvantages of individual shirking, dominant
personalities, excessive conformity, and “risky shift.”4
Students—like all people—might be less risk averse
in a group setting, feeling relatively invulnerable in
small-group decision-making. In this instance, they might be
inclined to devise more “radical” peace agreements that could
prove less tenable.
If using groups, a division of
labor by issue-area or negotiating party is not recommended. Division by
issue-area reduces the opportunity for each student to contend with both
the agreement as a whole and all of its constituent parts; division by
negotiating party eliminates the obligation to imagine and accommodate
the other side's perspective. Still, a small group format would have the
advantages of a) easing the burden for students in an introductory-level
class; b) creating a forum for debating the issues; and c) requiring
compromise as a prerequisite to the assignment's successful completion.
One might even contemplate using small groups to combine an initial
classroom simulation with the subsequent writing of peace
agreements.
7. Feedback and Grading. Be prepared to provide students with
detailed written feedback. This is essential, since otherwise they will
not know what, in your judgment, worked and what was less persuasive.
Your comments obviously should address their handling of specific issues
(e.g., what to do about refugees), as well as the broader political
calculation embodied in their work (i.e., whether both sides might
conceivably accept it). Your overall assessment may be somewhat
subjective, but the chief purpose of the assignment—unlike peace
agreements themselves—is to start a learning process that promises
results regardless of the final outcome.
