Content uploaded by Mneesha Gellman
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Mneesha Gellman on Mar 12, 2023
Content may be subject to copyright.
articles
From Sulha to Salaam:Connecting Local Knowledge
with International Negotiations for Lasting
Peace in Palestine/Israel
MNEESHA GELLMAN
MANDI VUINOVICH
In this article, we survey conflict resolution in the Arab world and then
turn to sulha, a Palestinian peacemaking process, for an in-depth
analysis to distill lessons for Palestinian-Israeli negotiations. We identify
key features of the community-based practice of sulha that could be
invoked at the international level: restoration of honor and dignity, rec-
onciliation in the wider community, and public demarcation of the
end of violence. Our argument is that culture is crucial in fostering
mutual understanding in conflict resolution, and that ensuring the
basic human right to dignity should be an essential component of inter-
national third-party interventions. Sulha is promoted as a technique
for addressing the right to dignity within contentious multiparty dis-
course through the tactic of education and community exposure at both
the local and international levels. We conclude that reembedding the
essence of dignity and honor expression at the community level is a crit-
ical component of sustainable nonviolent coexistence sought through
international relations.
CONFLICT RESOLUTION QUARTERLY, vol. 26, no. 2, Winter 2008 © Wiley Periodicals, Inc. 127
and the Association for Conflict Resolution • DOI: 10.1002/crq.227
NOTE: The authors would like to thank Reneé Worringer, Morgan Brigg, and Joshua
Dankoff for comments on previous drafts of this article.
This article explores the conflict resolution practice of sulha in Arab
communities in Palestine/Israel and its potential to offer a more cul-
turally informed reconciliation mechanism for international negotiations.
Contrary to popular perceptions of the Middle East, the Arab world has
numerous conflict resolution practices that hearken back to pre-Islamic
times. Assumptions about the nature of social reality in Arab societies tend
to stereotype Arab people, and especially Arab men, as violent and profiting
from perpetual violence (Abu-Nimer, 2003; Ramsbotham, Woodhouse,
and Miall, 2005). Instead, we interpret violence as a survival tactic,
employed when peaceful cohabitation is arrested by consistent threats to
identity and security. This survival-based violence is initiated by both
Palestinians and Israelis, manifesting in various forms such as suicide
bombing, military and civilian initiated attacks, and displacement.
Accordingly, this article strives to assess a conflict resolution practice of
Arab communities in Palestine/Israel and analyze aspects of sulha that
could be incorporated into standard negotiation techniques by interna-
tional actors. First-hand experience of the dilemmas of the “other” is diffi-
cult to come by in conflict resolution, but sulha ritual offers a nonbinding
forum for parties to explore the cultural constraints and human needs
operating behind the stated positions of international-level negotiations. If
this experience is mirrored on the local level, with Palestinian and Israeli
peace builders implementing ritual aspects of sulha as role play exercises in
meetings, cross-cultural encounters, and in peace and conflict-based aca-
demic curricula, then the larger affected populations on both sides may see
their own experiences reflected internationally. Through school curricu-
lums, community education workshops, and ritualized peacemaking
events, sulha’s essence can be locally transmitted. At the international level,
prenegotiation seminars on sulha’s history, along with presentations of its
myriad rituals, would expose high-level peacemakers to a conceptual
toolkit that has proven successful throughout the Middle East for generations.
The gap between international and local peace initiatives in Palestine/Israel
has been vast, but in this article we plumb the range of possibilities for
engaging sulha’s lessons on the path to peace.
In our survey of the literature on Jewish-Israeli and Arab conflict
management techniques, we generally found that the Arab side of conflict res-
olution practice has been underrepresented. As such, we have chosen to focus
our research on filling in a missing piece. Simultaneously, we recognize that
the very essence of conflict resolution processes necessitates exploration of
Israeli Jewish and Arab practices together to work collaboratively. This is
128 GELLMAN, VUINOVICH
CONFLICT RESOLUTION QUARTERLY • DOI: 10.1002/crq
because, ultimately, inclusive negotiation practices are needed to reduce
violence and validate each other’s narratives. Also, we acknowledge the dis-
tinctiveness of secular Israelis and the spectrum of religiously Jewish cul-
ture, law, and practice in the Diaspora, but we cannot cover this vast angle
in the purview of this article. Instead, we focus on sulha as a ritual to
change the patterns of conflict, while affirming that for peace building
to be successful in the long run it must include all people who are affected
by the conflict (Whitney, Liebler, and Cooperrider, 2003).
Sulh or sulha is used consistently throughout the literature referring to
the process of reconciliation. Equally, the term sulhah is employed in some
regions to refer to the “event or ritual of reconciliation rather than the
process” (Abu-Nimer, 2003, p. 99). For the purpose of this article, sulha, as
noted by Irani and Funk (1998), will be employed “to refer to a ritualized
process of restorative justice and peacemaking and to the actual outcome
or condition sealed by that process” (p. 52). Fundamental to sulha’s process
is the reembedding of dignity into the social relationship web. Dignity is
enshrined as an essential component to human well-being in the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights, Article One, and in the Preamble (United
Nations, 1948). Safe guarding this basic human right to dignity could take
place in international negotiations not only when awareness of its impor-
tance is increased but when dignity is perceived as an integral part of con-
flict resolution. Thus far, international mediations of Palestinian-Israeli
conflicts have lacked the ability to transpose dignity from the community
to the international level. Conversely, by incorporating dignity into elite
discourses, representative negotiators will address the need of their con-
stituencies for increased recognition of this basic human right.
The research question we unpack is, Can the traditional Arab conflict
resolution practice of sulha inform mediation techniques by offering
insight into how people understand conflict in their everyday life? More-
over, might conflict resolution practitioners at the international level use
these insights to address entrenched perceptions among parties in their
quest for reconciliation within international negotiation processes?
Sulha, a Palestinian peace-making process historically related to wider
Arab conflict resolution practices, has evolved to meet specific changing
societal and cultural needs depending on location. The sulha practice and
process embodies “ideals of cooperation, negotiation, honor, and compro-
mise” highlighting interpersonal conflict management strategies that influ-
ence the larger community through “indigenous sociopolitical interaction”
(Lang, 2002, p. 53). This practice is a conflict management and reconciliation
Local Knowledge and International Negotiations in Palestine/Israel 129
CONFLICT RESOLUTION QUARTERLY • DOI: 10.1002/crq
process that is employed to resolve an extensive range of disputes, often
times dealing with inter- and intrafamilial conflicts such as divorce and
murder.
Sulha reconciles individuals and communities who have been hurt and
offended, by “stressing the link between the psychological and political
dimensions of communal life through its recognition that injuries between
individuals and groups will fester and expand if not acknowledged,
repaired, forgiven, and transcended” (Irani, 1999, p. 9). Furthermore, in
Palestinian society “it is the only acceptable way to begin the healing of
deeply wounded people, who, with time, will eventually return to the natu-
ral course of their relationship” (Jabbour, 1996, p. 99). Christian, Muslims,
and Druze Arabs embrace sulha to resolve disputes among individuals, fam-
ilies, groups, and villages (Shihade, 2005). Lang (2002) notes that this type
of mediation “is employed widely to resolve disputes, however trivial or seri-
ous, between (and sometimes within) families” and has cultural moral
authority to handle grave offences such as murder (p. 53).
After a brief historical overview, we theoretically situate and define con-
tentious terms that we operationalize throughout this essay. Next we give a
brief survey of conflict resolution in the Arab world and then turn to
deeper exploration of sulha, to distill its lessons for international negotia-
tions. The role of mediators, the truce agreement, social rituals, and the
closing ceremony within the sulha process are highlighted. We then iden-
tify three key lessons of sulha: restoration of honor and dignity, reconcilia-
tion that engages the wider community, and public demarcation of the end
of violence. These social interactions have proven themselves over time to
transform volatile relationships into ones of nonviolent coexistence.
Because international negotiations regarding Palestinian and Israeli terri-
tory have historically crumbled in the face of violence, we turn to sulha for
possible interactive techniques that can inform more enduring negotia-
tions. To conclude, we reassert that the role of culture is crucial in fostering
mutual understanding in conflict resolution. Furthermore, we state that
sulha’s reconciliation methods be understood as a technique for addressing
the basic human need for dignity through three specific intervention
processes—the jaha, hodna, and sulha—which are described further on.
The purpose of this article is exploratory, not prescriptive. We do not
intend to offer a generic solution for peace in the Middle East, but we do
believe there is space to incorporate indigenous Arab conflict resolution prac-
tices in international peace negotiations. Although we desire the sulha
process to be fundamentally integrated into international negotiations, until
130 GELLMAN, VUINOVICH
CONFLICT RESOLUTION QUARTERLY • DOI: 10.1002/crq
further in-depth research is conducted we refrain from making specific sug-
gestions for model integration. Instead, we offer only general ideas for sulha’s
promotion with the goal being to emphasize the importance of bridging
rational and emotional dialogue to address the human need for dignity at the
international level. An overview of sulha’s historical background is now pre-
sented as a departure point for contextualizing the culture of sulha.
Bridging History,Theory, and Language
Sulha’s historical underpinnings are rooted in the religious writings of the
now dominant faiths in the Palestine/Israel region. Notable works include
early Semitic writings, later Christian scriptures dating from the first cen-
tury C.E., and more specifically later pre-Islamic and Islamic Arab litera-
ture ( Jabbour, 1996). Sulha originated as a conflict resolution method
roughly two thousand years ago between warring desert tribes in the Mid-
dle East. At that time, two conflicting parties would agree to resolve an
issue assisted by a mediator (Shabi, 2003). Today sulha is understood by
community leaders in Palestine as a ritualized process of conflict resolution
to manage and contain a wide range of conflicts (Irani and Funk, 1998).
Sometimes this takes place in the absence of state authority, and other
times in conjunction with judicial systems.
It is noteworthy, with the creation of the state of Israel in 1948 and the
subsequent implementation of martial law, that many Palestinian commu-
nities reinstated tribal laws and customs to manage and reconcile conflict
(Moussalli, 1997). For the purpose of this article, we focus on the Arab
population of the Occupied Territories (the West Bank and Gaza Strip),
which we refer to as Palestine, and on Arabs living within the current bor-
ders of Israel. The majority of the literature available on the practice of
sulha focuses on the Galilee region of Israel because of the work of House
of Hope, founded by Elias Jabbour, whose work is seminal in document-
ing contemporary sulha.
In the modern-day political state of Israel, sulha has a unique embed-
ded relationship with formal justice mechanisms. Sulha does not replace
civil or criminal state law; rather, it is employed in conjunction with it.
Arab crime victims often choose to pursue justice through the state court
system and sulha simultaneously (Tsafrir, 2006). This modern adaptation
of sulha reflects its ongoing societal importance and malleability. During
pre-Islamic times (Jahiliyah), sulha acted as the exclusive tribal law and was
typically the only means for resolution of disputes (Jabbour, 1996). Brown
Local Knowledge and International Negotiations in Palestine/Israel 131
CONFLICT RESOLUTION QUARTERLY • DOI: 10.1002/crq
(1997) highlights the unique relationship between modern state justice
mechanisms and sulha,stating that disputants often pursue traditional rec-
onciliation in tandem with arbitration. Ultimately the court issues the final
binding outcome, but sulha offers culturally appropriate mechanism for
long-term reconciliation. When the state is unwilling or unable to inter-
vene, Arab and Islamic communities have sustained indigenous conflict
resolution practices, which offer reconciliation in ways that address the
need for honor and dignity (Shihade, 2005).
We next analyze a number of terms and their conceptual underpin-
nings. For the scope and purpose of our argument, the term Arab describes
people of Arab ethnicity representing mixed religious backgrounds. Western
is used to refer to all cultures directly derived from Europe that are Christian
and historically not socially bound by village kinship systems (Salla, 1993).
(We acknowledge that Western is a problematic term that cannot capture
the complexity of the relationship between cultures and nation.) In the
context of Palestine/Israel, we take conflict to be a struggle to define iden-
tity and security , although ontologically we hold conflict as neither posi-
tive nor negative but rather as a dynamic force for change that can destroy
or construct social relationships (Galtung, 1989; Liebler and Sampson,
2003). Conflict resolution involves a third party with varying degrees of
potential neutrality or impartiality. Such a person can assist disputants as
they move through conciliation, facilitation, mediation, or other problem-
solving techniques to change the dynamics of interaction. Like reconciliation,
“where concerns about both the past and future can meet” (Lederach
1997, p. 27), the negotiation process is characterized by relationships.
Culture influences both how relationships are built as well as the norms
and values that socially create meaning. Social constructivism is the basic
foundation of conflict resolution, which emphasizes the importance of cul-
ture in meaning making. In other words, people “use locally received or
constructed common sense to perceive, interpret, evaluate, and act on and in
both internal and external reality” (Avruch and Black, 1991, p. 31). Culture
is composed of experiences, “more or less organized, learned or created by
the individuals of a population, including those images or encodement and
their interpretations or meanings transmitted from past generations, from
contemporaries, or formed by individuals themselves” (Abu-Nimer, 2001,
p. 687). Avruch and Black (1991) confirm that the “culture question” and cul-
tural variation in conflict resolution are of paramount importance (see also
Ramsbotham, Woodhouse, and Miall, 2005). If people’s needs are culturally
specific, it follows that conflict resolution processes should address human
132 GELLMAN, VUINOVICH
CONFLICT RESOLUTION QUARTERLY • DOI: 10.1002/crq
needs with culturally specific means. However, the field of conflict resolu-
tion continues to grapple with the question of where to infuse cultural
needs within reconciliation processes.
Social norms fundamental to culture are integral to everyday life and
are also present in conflict. Conflict is often seen as a negative obstacle that
must be overcome, rather than a resource to be drawn on in conciliation.
Yet “culture is not posited as the cause of conflict, instead, it is intertwined
with conflict and the processes of resolution” (Avruch and Black, 1991,
p. 31). We understand conflict as part of the social relationship web, as
constructed at the individual, communal, and international levels, which
must incorporate culture to be sustainable. Indeed, dignity is a universal
thread running through cultures involved in the negotiation process, and
awareness and enforcement of this basic human right is essential for non-
violent coexistence. For Arab communities, part of meaning construction
is engendered by culturally embedded rituals such as sulha, due in large
part to honor and dignity restoration.
Sulha, as ritualized behavior, creates a space for regaining dignity and
honor where it has been lost. Ritual is a technical, aesthetic, and commu-
nicative process that plays an important role in conflict resolution and rec-
onciliation (Irani and Funk, 2001; see also Edmund R. Leach, “Ritual,” in
Sills, 1968, pp. 520–526). As an interpersonal strategy, sulha permits
micro-level relationship mending that has the potential for macro-level
impact. This article seeks to promote the creation of dignity and honor as
cultural and ritual resources that are underrepresented in contemporary
Palestinian-Israeli negotiations.
Situating Sulha in Arab Conflict Resolution
A survey of contemporary literature exposes the breadth and historical
depth of conflict resolution in Arab culture, offering insight into tradi-
tional, political, and religious dispute resolution practices throughout the
Middle East region. Because of sulha’s applied adaptability, we find it to be
an encouraging point of departure to connect community reconciliation
and wider negotiations.
We first recognize the seminal work of Elias Jabbour, founder of the
House of Hope Peace Centre in Galilee, who has ceaselessly participated
in, promoted, and documented the intricacies of sulha ( Jabbour, 1996).
He identifies the arduous task of “returning the rights and dignity to
the families of both the offender and the offended” (p. 95), which rests on the
Local Knowledge and International Negotiations in Palestine/Israel 133
CONFLICT RESOLUTION QUARTERLY • DOI: 10.1002/crq
mediators, who must be highly culturally attuned to avoid mistakes that
could plunge the disputants back into violence.
Jabbour’s work is complemented by the recent examination of the state’s
role and lack of ability or willingness to respond to conflict, presented by
Shihade (2005) in her research centered on Palestinian Arab communities
in the Galilee region of Israel. Shihade documents successful contemporary
containment and management of conflict at the community level through
sulha, importantly proving that sulha is not a lost cultural practice. More
broadly, Abdalla’s examination (2000–01) of Islamic and Western conflict
resolution literature focuses on Islamic interpersonal conflict resolution.
Accordingly, Abdalla highlights the interdependence and “culture of relat-
edness” that often act as a corner stone in Middle Eastern communities. He
stresses that such characteristics should not be overshadowed by models for
interpersonal conflict intervention that stem from assumptions of individu-
alism and independent existence (Abdalla, 2000–01).
Paul Salem (1997), in addition to Irani and Funk (1998), assess the
applicability of conflict resolution approaches to Arab cultural, social, and
religious methods of conflict reduction and management. They make the
important distinction that although sulha is not universally legitimized by
all Middle Eastern states because of political and religious differences
within states, nevertheless ritual remains a fundamental method to con-
trol conflict and maintain harmony within and among communities.
Ritualistic reconciliation practices such as sulha help groups acknowledge,
repair, forgive, and transcend conflict on the psychological and political
levels. Ritual expression of conflict through sulha allows honor and face
saving to pervade interactions and reach beyond political and religious
demarcations. Such expression is typified within a communal setting, but
we suggest it could offer international mediators an avenue for culturally
meaningful engagement among disputants.
The ritualistic component of sulha has been isolated for too long at the
village level. Academically, its use has been positively explored in interna-
tional water conflict negotiations (Wolf, 2000) and modern urban settings
(Drieskens, 2006). Smith’s work (1989) complements the native Arab
voice of Elias Jabbour, whose insider’s perspective is an invaluable gateway
to understanding local conflict resolution traditions in the Galilee. Our
research also draws on the continuous work of Abu-Nimer (1996a, 1996b,
2001, 2003) and his writings on conflict resolution from Western and
Middle Eastern perspectives, Islamic conflict management, and peace
building.
134 GELLMAN, VUINOVICH
CONFLICT RESOLUTION QUARTERLY • DOI: 10.1002/crq
Finally, a notable point of contact between modern state-centric justice
mechanisms and sulha is examined by Tsafrir (2006) in his paper focusing
on the complex relationship between the Israeli legal system and sulha
agreements. Interestingly, Tsafrir notes that sulha agreements between an
accused and a victim or victim’s family can influence the judge’s decisions
during criminal proceedings. Sulha agreements tend to work in favor of the
suspect in respect to detention and sentencing, but they can also work
against the accused when its weight is attached to the verdict. Lang (2002)
examines sulha as well in relation to state law and order practices, noting
that “these systems generally are not in opposition, and neither has
replaced the other” (p. 62). Because state systems do not reconcile disput-
ing parties, they ultimately lack the ability to adequately rectify a situation
of injustice caused by an imbalance of honor. The key component of sulha
in relation to state justice mechanisms is its ability to “create an environ-
ment in which people feel emotionally able to resume peaceful relations
and continue living together in close quarters” (p. 62).
We see the potential of sulha to be incorporated into international dia-
logue to recreate this emotional sense of honor throughout the negotiation
process. Furthermore, Palestinian people may feel more included in inter-
national discussions concerning their own fate if their human right to dig-
nity is acknowledged through culturally based ritual. The literature just
mentioned offers a solid foundation for our further exploration of needs
expression and management through ritualistic aspects of sulha and the
potential for practitioners to integrate these elements at the international
level for more holistic and culturally meaningful negotiations. Educational
activities at both the local and international levels have the potential to
revitalize sulha, and ritualized role play is a potential medium. One advan-
tage of education through role play is that the power of direct experience
may help channel reactions to conflict toward greater understanding of the
“other.” Furthermore, sulha enacted in role play opens a door to the cre-
ative, experiential self that touches the core of the conflict issue: feelings
have been hurt, dignity compromised, and this emotional context will
have to be addressed to assuage the violence.
The Sulha Process
Basic assumptions that underlie the sulha process are outlined by Abu-Nimer
(2003) in his discussion of peace-building frameworks. First, disputants
must be persuaded to invest power in the sulha process through norms and
Local Knowledge and International Negotiations in Palestine/Israel 135
CONFLICT RESOLUTION QUARTERLY • DOI: 10.1002/crq
sociocultural understandings of morality. These norms imply that to seek
harmony is more noble and correct than to pursue victory, as victory
entails limited benefits to the community. In other words, compromise is
prioritized over individual gain. Intervention by a third party is necessary
in the majority of cases. Finally, with meaningful control and execution of
sulha, reconciliation and social harmony is not only possible but preferable
to Islamic or civil courts because of its ability to restore order in the society.
Mediating Actors: Jaha
We now turn to the three main elements of the sulha: forming the mediat-
ing body (jaha); securing the truce (hodna); and closing the ceremony, also
referred to as the sulha. Because the sulha process is not incorporated into
current international negotiations, we find it important to offer the reader
a comprehensive understanding of its details. We can then speculate as to
the role of sulha’s underlying themes when separated from its circumstan-
tial characteristics.
The role of the jaha is to petition the offended household on behalf of
the aggressor and plead with the aggrieved family to seek reconciliation
through sulha in place of violent revenge (Jabbour, 1996). Forgiveness and
honor are the primary underpinning sociocultural assumptions employed
by the jaha to encourage certain behaviors of tolerance and respect between
the families (Abu-Nimer, 1996a). Thereafter, the mediators—often Muslim,
Christian, or Druze notables—are chosen for their embodiment of moral
authority. The composition of the jaha reflects the Arab approach to the
preferred third party being an “unbiased insider with ongoing connections
to the major disputants as well as a strong sense of the common good and
standing within the community” (Irani and Funk, 1998, p. 61). Addition-
ally, the jaha members are chosen for their honesty and decency (Smith,
1989), experience, status, and leadership (Irani and Funk, 1998). Age is
another prominent feature of the jaha’s composition, as older community
members are highly venerated in Arabic society.
The size of the jaha depends on the severity of the case. The “persuasion
power” of a larger group is sometimes necessary, particularly if a smaller
jaha is not able to influence the direction of the negotiations (Smith,
1989). Jahas can be as small as one member or as large as twenty; again, the
conflict dictates composition (pp. 385–398).
The jaha members then proceed with “honor-laden gestures” (Lang,
2002) that reassure the family the jaha is working to restore their family name.
Smith (1989) also expresses the connection between power and language:
136 GELLMAN, VUINOVICH
CONFLICT RESOLUTION QUARTERLY • DOI: 10.1002/crq
“When the parties have decided to reconcile through sulha it is imperative
that the party state it openly and clearly” (p. 388). The party might say
they accept that their case will be in the mediator’s hands, as well as on the
mediator’s conscience. At this critical moment, the psychological, emotional,
and communal burden of the conflict is shifted to the mediating party. This
transposition is done through a clear, well-articulated announcement that is
understood to be a public declaration by the parties. Although such a direct
transfer of responsibility between parties and mediators may be impossible
at the international level, the necessary investing of legitimacy in the medi-
ator that this process requires offers important insight for those hoping to
mediate internationally. Mediators must be trusted enough by the parties
to hold the burden of the dispute and therefore be perceived as capable of
setting an equitable agenda.
Jabbour (1996) also notes that a unique characteristic of jahas is the
ability to function as “anger absorbers” between parties (p. 46). The jaha
acts with great tolerance and patience in engaging and listening to the
bereaved family members, who are often filled with sadness and resent-
ment. Notably, jaha members are not neutral outsiders, but rather inti-
mately familiar with the history of the community as well as its prevailing
customs and norms (Abu-Nimer, 1996a). Jaha members can create politi-
cal capital through the process, which is important for building prestige
and moral authority (Lang, 2002).
Internationally, mediators have historically relied on persuasive politi-
cal authority but perhaps been too “outside” the culture of the disputing
parties to gain the trust typically afforded insider-partial mediators. Sulha
shows us the utility of an insider-partial jaha,which challenges conceptions
of neutrality and impartiality in mediation.
The Truce: Hodna
Following establishment of the jaha,the subsequent step in the sulha
process involves granting consent, or hodna,which holds considerable
symbolic significance for the facilitation process. Hodna is an agreement
wherein the jaha specifies a certain amount of time during which the
aggrieved family will not retaliate; likewise, the offender’s family will avoid
any further confrontations with the victim’s family (Lang, 2002). The
hodna is considered an act of humility, demonstrating the willingness of all
parties to reconstruct a relationship without the threat of violence.
During the agreed truce period, the jaha acts in utmost confidence and
neutrality, sharing information exclusively with the involved parties or
Local Knowledge and International Negotiations in Palestine/Israel 137
CONFLICT RESOLUTION QUARTERLY • DOI: 10.1002/crq
among themselves (Jabbour, 1996) while they undertake fact-finding
missions by visiting affected parties in the community. Any information
gathered by the jaha must not reveal or disclose information given by
witnesses as it could damage their reputation and the community’s trust in
them as reliable mediators for future disputes. Interestingly, this parallels
the tradition of ensuring confidentiality in the mediation process.
Narrative story telling is the primary communicative channel the jaha
employs. This highlights the assumption that, as Abu-Nimer (1996a)
observes, many cases are resolved without face-to-face negotiations to avoid
the risk of further escalation of the conflict. Instead, story telling is imple-
mented as a tool for each party to communicate privately with the mediat-
ing body to present their interests while avoiding antagonism. In conclusion
of the hodna,disputants come together after the jaha has arbitrated on the
appropriate compensation to create a climate for reconciliation.
The Closing Ceremony: Sulha
The primary objectives of the conflict resolution rituals embodied by sulha
are restoration of honor and granting of forgiveness. These objectives are
achieved through a closing ceremony, shaking hands, and sharing a meal
together (Jabbour, 1996). Once a final decision has been arbitrated by
the jaha,invitations are sent to the family members, special guests, and the
wider community. Generally, the final sulha ceremony takes place out-
doors in the village center, because restoration of honor relies on public
view (Lang, 2002). Additionally, the final sulha ceremony is usually punc-
tuated with a “heavy silence” (Jabbour, 1996, p. 55) and is a scene of tem-
porary humility. Both parties demonstrate this feature; the aggressor’s
family humbly accepts the wrong doings and offers compensation on
behalf of their family member, and the bereaved family respectfully for-
gives the aggressor’s family as an act of magnanimity and humbleness.
If all is performed correctly, the victim’s family will feel that honor has
been restored through passing compensation and shaking hands. When
the families put their hands together, parties understand that “tensions
must ease” as this is often the most volatile moment of the sulha process
(Lang, 2002, p. 59). This handshake also acts as a public demarcation of
the end of violence between the families. Afterward, the victim’s family
invites the offender’s family to drink bitter coffee in their home, paying
respects to the tradition of hospitality. Finally, as documented by Irani and
Funk, the head of the offender’s household concludes the sulha process by
hosting a feast wherein the two families share bread, an age-old symbol of
138 GELLMAN, VUINOVICH
CONFLICT RESOLUTION QUARTERLY • DOI: 10.1002/crq
fidelity. Both families must then eat together to signify the reversal of the
tragedy and restoration of peace (Irani and Funk, 1998).
Lessons from Sulha
The ruling assumption of sulha is that peace and cooperation rather than
conflict are valuable and normal. Although we understand conflict to be a
neutral transformative energy, many conflict resolution practitioners per-
ceive conflict as being negative, disruptive, and threatening to maintenance
of the normative order. Sulha is not employed as a means of addressing
root causes of conflict, but it does recalibrate communities for peaceful
coexistence. The practice of sulha can therefore be described as a ritualistic
representation of assumptions about the kind of relations that ought to
exist between people in Arab society. Drawing on this premise, Lang
(2002) asserts that such views of social order are developed repeatedly with
every sulha as they are represented, retold, and reinscribed in the minds of
participants. Sulha’s effect on conflicting parties calls into question
whether conflict can be resolved as opposed to transformed.
Sulha is future-oriented, and an interpersonal strategy that can be used
at the community and international levels. The potential for relationship
among disputants determines the intervention procedures and their
nature, size, and settlement. Furthermore, a future focus offers a platform
for valorizing peace, in which the sulha ceremony demarcates the end of
violence and acts as a “persuasive force to forgo future feuding” (Lang,
2002 p. 64). This is of particular importance in conducting the sulha
between powerful groups who could upset delicate regional stability if the
dispute is not contained (Abu-Nimer, 1996a). Sulha is concerned with
restoration of the social web rather than changing power relationships or
the status quo. Importantly, Abu-Nimer (1996b) asserts, the same values
that underpin the sulha—honor and forgiveness—can also “prevent or
obstruct the process of reaching a just resolution; instead it may contribute
to the preservation of an asymmetrical power relationship that exists
between the parties” (p. 32). Therefore, its potential to repair relationships
is strong while its ability to challenge structural violence is weak.
The final ceremony is centered on forgiveness and emphasizes peace
and compromise for the greater good of society (Smith, 1989). A pre-
requisite of a meaningful sulha is openness for both the disputants and the
wider community. Smith observes that the sulha necessitates witnesses who
can validate the end of violence through their presence. The ceremonial
Local Knowledge and International Negotiations in Palestine/Israel 139
CONFLICT RESOLUTION QUARTERLY • DOI: 10.1002/crq
shaking of hands between families during the sulha validates the peace for
all those present as well as those who were absent (Smith, 1989). Although
this process has been attempted diplomatically by publicizing photos or
video footage of historic handshakes, the larger community is relegated to
the role of observer, rather than active witness to the resolution.
Reconciling with Dignity
As previously discussed, the values most applicable to sulha are honor, sav-
ing face, wisdom, generosity, respect, dignity, and forgiveness (Abu-Nimer,
2003). Sulha furnishes a culturally appropriate means for restoring values.
We also find that cultural symbols and rituals such as sulha are not only
preferred but necessary for societal constructions of peaceful coexistence.
In Palestine, sulha is a means of communicating the need to resolve a con-
flict, but more importantly to create a future-oriented sociopolitical rela-
tionship in which parties can live together. Sulha achieves this end through
symbolic and ritualized language and acts of forgiveness and reconciliation
(Smith, 1989).
Regarding adherence to the “peace” or restoration of honor created
through sulha, Lang (2002) comments that “sincerity is irrelevant because
by participating in the sulha the actors enmesh themselves in a web of
social relations that will constrain them to observe the peace” (p. 64).
Breaking bread, even if done with resentment, is still the ritualized enact-
ment of sharing vital nutrients, and the psychological implications of such
an interaction will linger on. It is imperative to recognize that sulha’s pri-
mary function is not to address historically underlying or latent causes of
conflict, including structural or economical factors. Thus, as a first step in the
international arena sulha could initiate dialogue but would not resolve
the grievances of Palestinians. What sulha is able to offer more broadly is a
systematic process for recognizing a basic human right to dignity through
restoration of honor. Though sulha in its original form was enacted with
clear divisions between victim and perpetrator, there is potential for mutual
apology and forgiveness to occur at the international level because the ritual
can be enacted with each party representing both roles. Because Israelis and
Palestinians often see each other as being the perpetrator, the ability
to validate this perception, while simultaneously requiring each party to
relinquish their place as the victim, may increase awareness of challenges
that both sides of the conflict face. Application of this process at the local
level may begin with sulha incorporated into school curriculums in combi-
nation with other conflict resolution trainings in the larger community.
140 GELLMAN, VUINOVICH
CONFLICT RESOLUTION QUARTERLY • DOI: 10.1002/crq
Internationally, it will take dedicated mediators with both cultural aware-
ness and commitment to the spirit of Article One to apply this resource to
international discourse, whether in the form of sulha seminars as warm-ups
to dialogue or as a larger ritualized component of the dialogue itself. The
focus point of these activities is promotion of sulha as a technique for
addressing the right to dignity through education at both the community
and the international levels. Furthermore, such activities are avenues for re-
embedding the essence of dignity and honor as critical components for sus-
tainable nonviolent coexistence.
Intercommunal Conflict Necessitates
Intercommunal Reconciliation
The unique opportunity sulha presents to conflict mediators is its ability to
address the loss of honor and dignity in a manner contextualized by
culture and interpersonal relationships. Conflict resolution discourses ana-
lyze the appropriateness of potential strategies depending on the conflict
setting. Those tactics, which are guided by problem-solving philosophy,
allow more space for variegated dialogue techniques than originate from
power-bargaining paradigms. As noted by Burton, it appears that “the tra-
ditional processes of power bargaining and mediation are themselves an
additional reason for conflicts to be protracted. It is they which lead to
temporary settlements without tackling the underlying issues” (1986, p. 52).
Standard international relations have indeed inadequately assessed the role of
power, and despite repeated intervention by high-profile mediators Palestin-
ian-Israeli negotiations have not led to lasting conciliation. This predicament
opens the door to sulha operating within an international framework.
To gain acceptance of sulha’s operating protocol, a key feature of West-
ern mediation must be challenged. Western mediators tend to prize neu-
trality or impartiality, which, as seen previously with sulha, is not the norm
in Palestine. In contrast, communities that employ sulha incorporate
mediation as part of conflict resolution processes within relationship webs,
meaning that conflict and its resolution occur within interconnected social
associations:
In the West where neutrality typically suggests the mediator should
have no past relations with the disputants, a mediator for Middle East
disputes is often a community leader who may be well acquainted
with the parties. Furthermore, such a mediator is often more active in
Local Knowledge and International Negotiations in Palestine/Israel 141
CONFLICT RESOLUTION QUARTERLY • DOI: 10.1002/crq
suggesting solutions—even exerting strong pressures toward recom-
mended outcomes—than is the mediator of the West [Schellenberg,
1996, p. 184].
Despite these differences, there is common ground. The jaha can act
with neutrality, and in some Western mediation third-party interveners
will also try to sway disputing parties. Thus, notwithstanding conceptual
clashing, sulha can be employed in the international arena. Another way
the role of the third party can be modified is by pairing traditional mediators
from each party with an ostensibly more neutral Western-style mediator,
so that each may be informed by the other’s approach to the mediation.
These traditional mediators may serve as co-facilitators, advisors to a sole
mediator, or coaches for a sulha role play within the agenda of a more con-
ventional mediation, depending on the needs of the conflicting parties. By
allowing third parties to be informed by culture, rather than act as agents
of cultural suppression, mediators can take a step closer to peeling back the
layers of positions and interests to arrive at the core needs of conflict actors.
Incorporating sulha’s restoration of honor and dignity into interna-
tional negotiations may partner with a reevaluation of Western mediation
standards. Both processes require reflection on the part of Western media-
tors about how they transpose their own values onto the people they are
mediating, and what deleterious effect this may have. To highlight another
point of disparity in cultural norms, relations in the Arab world are all too
often understood by Western negotiators as state-to-state rather than one
community to another (Swisher, 2004). State-to-state relations imply a dis-
tinct set of normative interactions that take other forms in community-
based relations. This is a potential gateway for sulha to positively affect and
facilitate meaningful international conflict resolution. Clearly, to infuse
sulha’s positive characteristics with the progressive threads of international
negotiation requires thoughtful analysis of Western conflict praxis.
Sulha’s Contribution to International Negotiations
Today, with increasing attention in the conflict resolution literature shift-
ing to transformational, elicitive models such as those proposed by John
Paul Lederach (1997), space is opening in conflict resolution practices to
address the emotional and perceptual sides of conflict. Sulha offers a model
of community-based reconciliation using honor restoration as the basis for
a return to nonviolent coexistence. Further research is necessary to fit
142 GELLMAN, VUINOVICH
CONFLICT RESOLUTION QUARTERLY • DOI: 10.1002/crq
sulha’s micro-level honor restoration into culturally appropriate mediation
training seminars prior to international negotiations. In the meantime,
community and school-based peace curricula could include sulha in order
to re-embed honor and dignity into social interactions.
Notably, sulha is not an exclusively Muslim practice, but its incorpora-
tion into international negotiations might cause alarm for Jewish and
Christian participants in future peace talks because it is associated pre-
dominantly with Muslim communities. However, if sulha’s ability to
restore honor and dignity can be actualized through multicultural ritual
and diverse dialogue, then the consequential shift in Palestinian-Israeli
relations could be significant. Security and identity issues shadow funda-
mental assumptions of the groups involved in the conflict. The search for
shared restoration of honor could embed emotional and perceptual needs
in the negotiation process.
Mutual Solutions?
In the quest to creatively seek solutions to an intractable conflict, civil soci-
ety has organized itself to fill in the gaps left by elite negotiations. Many
interfaith dialogue groups have formed in the last decade to offer civil soci-
ety peace-building initiatives where diplomatic leadership has failed. Peace
Now, Seeds of Peace, PeaceXPeace, and others bring Israelis and Arab
Muslims, Christians and Druze together to interconnect them with each other.
It is increasingly clear that multiple discourses exist in the Palestinian-
Israeli conflict, and no single discourse can adequately incorporate all
voices. Archaic power politics has tried and failed, and track two diplo-
macy can wield only a certain amount of influence by embedding its dia-
logues into state infrastructure. We do not advocate an unrealistic project
of sulha being used instead of Camp David negotiations, but we do look to
indigenous Arab conflict resolution processes such as sulha to rehumanize
the dialogue. Sulha is capable of restoring honor and pride in communities
too fearful and oppressed to negotiate as equals. By reaching people at the
community level, elders and village leaders can mobilize their populace to
engage wholeheartedly in conciliatory ritual. The state-based international
negotiation protocol must shed its mechanical skin and open itself to the
population it intends to serve.
Sulha embodies the cultural glue that binds people to their communi-
ties. By understanding the indigenous Arab processes of resolving conflict,
interveners may better identify the kinds of needs and interests that must
Local Knowledge and International Negotiations in Palestine/Israel 143
CONFLICT RESOLUTION QUARTERLY • DOI: 10.1002/crq
be addressed to foster reconciliation with the Arab community. The cur-
rent situation in Palestine/Israel reflects a conflict in which mediation may
not be appropriate, but it does not have to stay that way. Mediation itself
can be transformed into a culturally embedded process that all conflicting
parties can invest in.
Conclusion: A Plea for Genuine Dialogue
There is no formula for peace. Rather, it is an organic process based on the
unique individuals who make up the conflicting communities. Under-
standing their constructions of conflict, with meaningful culturally based
approaches to conflict management, is integral to constructing sustainable
resolutions. The parties who construct the conflict will ultimately be the
parties who build the resolution. Exclusive negotiations brokered by elites
continue to fail in the Middle East because they do not use all the cultural
conflict management tools at their disposal.
We do not expect the Palestine-Israel disputes to be able to leap into a
reconciliation process with the new (old) mechanisms we describe. Rather,
initiating genuine dialogue in space that includes variegated approaches to
conflict is a first step toward perceptual change that could reduce violence.
Safe space will be challenging to foster if human needs continue to be neg-
lected. Thus, including community and jaha voices that represent a multi-
faceted constituency may enable a more conciliatory tone to be set.
The closing ceremony of sulha includes the wider community.
Through openness and inclusiveness, the moral authority of sulha
enmeshes the community in a social web that then serves as the foundation
of peace in Arab communities. This expansive notion of inclusiveness
incorporates people across time and space who may not have been person-
ally present for the sulha ceremony. Inclusiveness understood at this level is
a pillar that gives sulha the moral authority to reconstruct a nonviolent
social situation. Importantly, the sulha process does not necessarily create
lasting peace; rather it recalibrates the social web for nonconflictive inter-
actions among community members. This type of shift relies on the moral
authority of the jaha, and it is this authority that international peace nego-
tiators lack today.
One suggestion is to include those who have been involved in the jaha
in international negotiations. These may be different kinds of people from
those traditionally chosen to represent Arabs externally in international
relations. Yet jaha members, representing civil society, are figures of moral
144 GELLMAN, VUINOVICH
CONFLICT RESOLUTION QUARTERLY • DOI: 10.1002/crq
authority in their communities, and thus their compromising abilities
could hold the prospect of increased community-supported negotiations.
Another option could be to have former jaha members serve as advisors to
those political representatives who do the actual negotiating. In this way
civil society could infuse cultural significance in the international process,
though clearly practitioners should be wary of incorporating sulha in solely
a tokenistic manner. Additionally, increased communication between local
and international peacemakers who are familiar with the core principles of
sulha would offer a lingua franca for improved expression of community
needs.
Other characteristics of sulha that are lacking in international negotia-
tions are greater openness and transparency. Although mediation and
accords do bring a limited degree of “management” to the peace process,
ultimately negotiations should be more inclusive, addressing perceptual and
emotional needs that are not reconciled by legal or diplomatic means.
Moreover, transparency is a vital aspect of reestablishing social webs (Witty,
1978). It can foster spaces that allow communities to re-enforce the restora-
tion of honor at various levels and thus strengthen themselves positively.
Finally, engagement between elite negotiators and the wider commu-
nity may catalyze a broad demarcation of the end of violence and a reori-
entation toward nonviolent coexistence. Here we see application of the
principles of honor and dignity restoration as a key lesson learned from
sulha. This should not be mistaken for advocating direct ritual application
to the international negotiation process (Smith, 1989).
The cultural framework of mediation also serves as a site of power
where language and assumptions are manipulated to serve distinct interests.
Both the intervener and the terms of dialogue can determine how parties
engage with each other. Western rational frameworks can negate emotional
and social rituals of reconciling that have proven themselves valuable within
Arab communities. Though we do not advocate direct transfer of these
symbolic ceremonies to the international negotiating table, space for emo-
tional and perceptual issues in conflict should be created.
Cultural appropriateness need not hinder advances in international
negotiations. Rather, contemporary Arab and Western conflict resolution
literatures and processes should be analyzed in an effort to extract princi-
ples and practices that can assist in the evolution of a model significantly
representing the parties. This model should engender time-honored prac-
tices such as sulha to invoke the specific cultural conditions needed for rec-
onciliation.
Local Knowledge and International Negotiations in Palestine/Israel 145
CONFLICT RESOLUTION QUARTERLY • DOI: 10.1002/crq
Despite our hope for constructive evolution of the Palestine-Israel con-
flict, we recognize that not all conflicts are solvable, and that the role of the
third party may vary widely, whether or not it is in the confines of power-
brokering mediation styles versus more elicitive models, and sometimes it
may not be appropriate at all (Rigby, 1995). In conflicts such as that
between Israelis and Palestinians, no real equality exists between parties,
yet successful mediation requires a core relationship of equal negotiating
power with which to operate.
Finally, we reiterate the importance of space for social expression in
peacemaking and how critical both public and private perceptions of the
other are. Recently this topic has received some attention, as Palestinian
and Israeli pairs of social scientists jointly completed a sophisticated survey
of Palestinian and Israeli expectations about the peace agreements made at
Camp David. They specifically looked at how participants’ psychosocial
processes fostered or detracted from a willingness to have real reconcilia-
tion with the other (Shamir and Shikaki, 2002). Again, this returns us to
the concept that honor and dignity restoration through ritual process is a
key factor in the social construct of conflict and conflict resolution. Until
we understand the minutiae of genuine reconciliation processes such as
sulha, which already exist within conflicting cultures, the prescriptions of
international negotiators will not adequately address needs on all sides and
the cycle of floundering peace agreements may continue. Re-embedding
community into international relations is one avenue to peace. Sulha has
the potential to take us there.
References
Abdalla, A. “Principles of Islamic Interpersonal Conflict Intervention: A Search
with Islam and Western Literature.” Journal of Law and Religion, 2000–01,
15(1/2), 151–184.
Abu-Nimer, M. “Conflict Resolution Approaches: Western and Middle Eastern
Lessons and Possibilities.” American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 1996a,
55(1), 35–53.
Abu-Nimer, M. “Conflict Resolution in an Islamic Context: Some Contextual
Questions.” Peace and Change, 1996b, 21(1), 22–40.
Abu-Nimer, M. “Conflict Resolution, Culture and Religion: Toward a Training
Model of Interreligious Peacebuilding.” Journal of Peace Research, 2001, 38(6),
685–704.
Abu-Nimer, M. Nonviolence and Peace Building in Islam: Theory and Practice.
Gainesville: University Press of Florida, 2003.
Avruch, K., and Black, P. “The Culture Question and Conflict.” Peace and
Change, 1991, 16(1), 22–45.
146 GELLMAN, VUINOVICH
CONFLICT RESOLUTION QUARTERLY • DOI: 10.1002/crq
Brown, N. The Rule of Law in the Arab World. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Uni-
versity Press, 1997.
Burton, J. W. “The History of International Conflict Resolution.” In E. E. Azer
and J. W. Burton (eds.), International Conflict Resolution: Theory and Practice.
Brighton, Sussex, U.K.: Wheatsheaf Books, 1986.
Drieskens, B. “A Cairene Way of Reconciling.” Islamic Law and Society, 2006,
13(1), 99–121.
Galtung, J. Nonviolence and Israel/Palestine. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press,
1989.
Irani, G. “Islamic Mediation Techniques for Middle Eastern Conflicts.” Middle
East Review of International Affairs, 1999, 3(2), 1–14.
Irani, G. E., and Funk, N. “Rituals of Reconciliations: Arab-Islamic Perspectives.”
Arab Studies Quarterly, 1998, 20(4), 53–69.
Irani, G. E., and Funk, N. C. “Rituals of Reconciliation: Arab-Islamic Perspec-
tives.” In A. A. Said, N. Funk, and A. S. Kadayifci (eds.), Peace and Conflict
Resolution in Islam. Lanham, Md.: University Press of America, 2001.Jabbour,
E. J. Sulha: Palestinian Traditional Peacemaking Process. Montreat, N.C.:
House of Hope, 1996.
Lang, S. “Sulha Peacemaking Process and the Politics of Persuasion.” Journal of
Palestine Studies, 2002, 31(3), 52–66.
Lederach, J. P. Building Peace: Sustainable Reconciliation in Divided Societies.
Washington, D.C.: United States Institute of Peace Press, 1997.
Liebler, C., and Sampson, C. “Appreciative Inquiry in Peacebuilding: Imagining
the Possible.” In C. Sampson, M. Abu-Nimer, C. Liebler, and D. Whitney
(eds.), Positive Approaches to Peacebuilding: A Resource for Innovators. Wash-
ington, D.C.: Pact, 2003.
Moussalli, A. “An Islamic Model for Political Conflict Resolution: Tahkin (Arbi-
tration).” In P. Salem (ed.), Conflict Resolution in the Arab World: Selected
Essays. Beirut, Lebanon: American University of Beirut, 1997.
Ramsbotham, O., Woodhouse, T., and Miall, H. Contemporary Conflict Resolu-
tion. Cambridge, UK: Polity, 2005.
Rigby, A. “Unofficial Nonviolent Intervention: Examples from the Israeli-Pales-
tinian Conflict.” Journal of Peace Research, 1995, 32(4), 453–467.
Salem, P. Conflict Resolution in the Arab World: Selected Essays. Beirut, Lebanon:
American University Press, 1997.
Salla, M. Islamic Radicalism: Muslim Nations and the West. Nedlands, Western
Australia: Indian Ocean Centre for Peace Studies—University of Western
Australia, 1993.
Schellenberg, J. A. “Mediation: Agreement at Camp David with Material from
‘Keeping Faith: Memories of a President’ by Jimmy Carter.” In J. A. Schellenberg
(Ed.), Conflict Resolution: Theory, Research, and Practice. Albany, N.Y.: State
University of New York Press, 1996.
Shabi, R. “Dance, Sing, and Eat for Peace.” New Statesman, 2003, 16(757),
14–16.
Local Knowledge and International Negotiations in Palestine/Israel 147
CONFLICT RESOLUTION QUARTERLY • DOI: 10.1002/crq
Shamir, J., and Shikaki, K. “Determinants of Reconciliation and Compromise
Among Israelis and Palestinians.” Journal of Peace Research, 2002, 39(2),
185–202.
Shihade, M. “Internal Violence: State’s Role and Societies Responses.” Arab Studies
Quarterly, 2005, 27(4), 31–44.
Sills, D. L. (ed.). International Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences, Vols. 3 & 4.
New York: Macmillan and Free Press, 1968.
Smith, D. L. “The Reward of Allah.” Journal of Peace Research, 1989, 26(4),
385–398.
Swisher, C. E. The Truth About Camp David: The Untold Story About the Collapse
of the Middle East Peace Process. New York: Nation Books, 2004.
Tsafrir, N. “Arab Customary Law in Israel: Sulha Agreements and Israeli Courts.”
Islamic Law and Society, 2006, 13(1), 76–98.
United Nations. “Universal Declaration of Human Rights.” United Nations, 1948.
Accessed Apr. 10,2006. Available at http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html.
Whitney, D., Liebler, C., and Cooperrider, D. “Appreciative Inquiry in Organiza-
tions and International Development: An Invitation to Share and Learn
Across Fields.” In C. Sampson, M. Abu-Nimer, C. Liebler, and D. Whitney
(eds.), Positive Approaches to Peacebuilding: A Resource for Innovators. Washington
D.C.: Pact, 2003.
Witty, C. “Disputing Issues in Shehaam: A Multireligious Village in Lebanon.” In
L. Nader (ed.), Law and Culture. Chicago: Aldine, 1978.
Wolf, A. “Indigenous Approaches to Water Conflict Negotiations and Implica-
tions for International Waters.” International Negotiations, 2000, 5, 357–373.
Mneesha Gellman is a Ph.D. student at Northwestern University.
Mandi Vuinovich is currently employed with the International Rescue
Committee in Tucson, Arizona.
148 GELLMAN, VUINOVICH
CONFLICT RESOLUTION QUARTERLY • DOI: 10.1002/crq
