{"id":210104,"date":"2022-07-04T12:00:00","date_gmt":"2022-07-04T11:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/?p=210104"},"modified":"2022-07-04T13:10:44","modified_gmt":"2022-07-04T12:10:44","slug":"the-missing-journalism-on-conflict-and-peace-and-the-middle-east","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/2022\/07\/the-missing-journalism-on-conflict-and-peace-and-the-middle-east\/","title":{"rendered":"The Missing Journalism on Conflict and Peace–and the Middle East"},"content":{"rendered":"

The local culture seems to demand a short introduction in your own tongue before switching to globalized English.\u00a0 I follow suit:<\/p>\n

\n

*****<\/p>\n

Jeg tror ikke man kan snakke om Midt\u00f6sten, og spesielt ikke legge frem et fredsforslag slik jeg har tenkt \u00e5 gj\u00f6re, uten dyp medf\u00f6lelse med verdens j\u00f6der for shoa, og med palestinenserne for okkupasjon og generasjoner i leire.\u00a0 Jeg har levd n\u00e6r begge siden jeg begynte \u00e5 sette meg inn i konflikten en natt i januar 1964 p\u00e5 jernbanestasjonen i Gaza og tror jeg forst\u00e5r og opplever traumenes dybde.\u00a0 Ordet “fred” blir problematisk, en dr\u00f6m et sted mellom forr\u00e6deri og oppgivelse.\u00a0 En oppfordring uten like.<\/em><\/p>\n

Translation from Norwegian (by TMS<\/em> editor):<\/strong><\/p>\n

I do not think it is possible to talk about the Middle East, and especially not to present a peace proposal as I intend to do, without deep sympathy for the Jews of the world for the shoa, and with the Palestinians for occupation and generations in camps.<\/em> I have lived close to both since I began to understand the conflict one night in January 1964 at the Gaza railway station and I think I understand and experience the depth of the traumas.<\/em> The word “peace” becomes problematic, a dream somewhere between betrayal and abandonment.<\/em> An invitation without equal.<\/em><\/p>\n

*****<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

This being the case, let me proceed with care.\u00a0 So I start with two images of international affairs, or human affairs for that matter, two discourses: the security approach and the peace approach.\u00a0 They compete for our attention and address the same concern with violence but are diametrically opposed:<\/p>\n

The Security Approach is based on four components:<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. An Evil Party, with strong capability and evil intention;<\/li>\n
  2. A Clear and Present Danger of Violence, real or potential;<\/li>\n
  3. Strength, to defeat or deter the evil party, in turn producing<\/li>\n
  4. Security, which is also the best approach to “peace”.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    The approach works when evil\/strong parties are weakened through defeat or deterrence, and\/or converted to become good.<\/p>\n

    The Peace Approach is also based on four components:<\/p>\n

      \n
    1. A Conflict, which has not been resolved\/transformed;<\/li>\n
    2. A Danger of Violence to “settle the conflict”;<\/li>\n
    3. Conflict Transformation, empathic\u2011creative\u2011nonviolent, producing<\/li>\n
    4. Peace, which is the best approach to “security”.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

      The approach works through acceptable\/sustainable outcomes.<\/p>\n

      The security approach presupposes superior strength (of whatever kind, Sun Tzu or Clausewitz), which implies inequality.<\/p>\n

      The peace approach presupposes a conflict outcome acceptable to all parties and sustainable, which implies equality.<\/p>\n

      I think you recognize them as scripts underlying thought, speech and action on the whole Middle East issue \u2011 or any other conflict for that matter.\u00a0 The discourses translate into journalism as two styles:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
       <\/p>\n

      VIOLENCE\u2011WAR\/VICTORY JOURNALISM<\/p>\n

       <\/p>\n

      I. VIOLENCE\/WAR\u2011ORIENTED<\/p>\n

       <\/p>\n

      focus on conflict arena,<\/p>\n

      2 parties, 1 goal (win), war<\/p>\n

      general zero\u2011sum orientation<\/p>\n

       <\/p>\n

      closed space, closed time;<\/p>\n

      causes and effect in arena,<\/p>\n

      who threw the first stone;<\/p>\n

      poor in context<\/p>\n

       <\/p>\n

      focus only on visible effect<\/p>\n

      of violence (killed, wounded<\/p>\n

      and material damage)<\/p>\n

       <\/p>\n

      making wars opaque\/secret<\/p>\n

       <\/p>\n

      “us\u2011them” journalism,<\/p>\n

      propaganda, voice, for “us”<\/p>\n

       <\/p>\n

      see “them” as the problem,<\/p>\n

      focus on who prevails in war<\/p>\n

       <\/p>\n

      dehumanization of “them”;<\/p>\n

      more so the worse the weapon<\/p>\n

       <\/p>\n

      reactive: waiting for violence<\/p>\n

      to occur before reporting<\/p>\n

       <\/p>\n

       <\/p>\n

      II.\u00a0 PROPAGANDA\u2011ORIENTED<\/p>\n

       <\/p>\n

      expose “their” untruths<\/p>\n

       <\/p>\n

      help “our” cover\u2011ups\/lies<\/p>\n

       <\/p>\n

       <\/p>\n

      III. ELITE\u2011ORIENTED<\/p>\n

       <\/p>\n

      focus on “their” violence<\/p>\n

      and on “our” suffering;<\/p>\n

      on able\u2011bodied elite males,<\/p>\n

       <\/p>\n

      give name of their evil\u2011doer<\/p>\n

       <\/p>\n

      focus on elite peace\u2011makers,<\/p>\n

      being elite mouthpiece<\/p>\n

       <\/p>\n

       <\/p>\n

      IV.\u00a0 VICTORY\u2011ORIENTED<\/p>\n

       <\/p>\n

      peace = victory + cease\u2011fire<\/p>\n

       <\/p>\n

      conceal peace\u2011initiative,<\/p>\n

      before victory is at hand<\/p>\n

       <\/p>\n

      focus on treaty, institution<\/p>\n

      the controlled society<\/p>\n

       <\/p>\n

      leaving for another war,<\/p>\n

      return if the old flares up<\/p>\n

       <\/td>\n

      		 <\/p>\n

      CONFLICT\/PEACE JOURNALISM<\/p>\n

       <\/p>\n

      I.\u00a0\u00a0 CONFLICT\u2011ORIENTED<\/p>\n

       <\/p>\n

      explore conflict formation,<\/p>\n

      x parties, y goals, z issues<\/p>\n

      general “win, win” orientation<\/p>\n

       <\/p>\n

      open space, open time;<\/p>\n

      causes and outcomes anywhere,<\/p>\n

      also in history\/culture;<\/p>\n

      rich in context<\/p>\n

       <\/p>\n

      focus also on invisible effects<\/p>\n

      of violence (trauma and glory,<\/p>\n

      damage to structure\/culture)<\/p>\n

       <\/p>\n

      making conflicts transparent<\/p>\n

       <\/p>\n

      giving voice to all parties;<\/p>\n

      empathy, understanding<\/p>\n

       <\/p>\n

      see conflict\/war as problem,<\/p>\n

      focus on conflict creativity<\/p>\n

       <\/p>\n

      humanization of all sides;<\/p>\n

      more so the worse the weapons<\/p>\n

       <\/p>\n

      proactive: reporting also<\/p>\n

      before violence\/war occurs<\/p>\n

       <\/p>\n

      II.\u00a0 TRUTH\u2011ORIENTED<\/p>\n

       <\/p>\n

      expose untruths on all sides<\/p>\n

       <\/p>\n

      uncover all cover\u2011ups<\/p>\n

       <\/p>\n

       <\/p>\n

      III. PEOPLE\u2011ORIENTED<\/p>\n

       <\/p>\n

      focus on violence by all sides<\/p>\n

      and on suffering all over;<\/p>\n

      also on women, aged, children,<\/p>\n

       <\/p>\n

      give name to all evil\u2011doers<\/p>\n

       <\/p>\n

      focus on people peace\u2011makers,<\/p>\n

      giving voice to the voiceless<\/p>\n

       <\/p>\n

       <\/p>\n

      IV.\u00a0 SOLUTION\u2011ORIENTED<\/p>\n

       <\/p>\n

      peace=nonviolence+creativity<\/p>\n

       <\/p>\n

      highlight peace initiatives,<\/p>\n

      also to prevent more war<\/p>\n

       <\/p>\n

      focus on structure, culture<\/p>\n

      the peaceful society<\/p>\n

       <\/p>\n

      aftermath: resolution, re\u2011<\/p>\n

      construction, reconciliation<\/p>\n

       <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

      The choice of journalistic style is an implicit choice of discourse, tapping into that underlying script. And my point is, of course, that the second column is by and large missing.<\/p>\n

      In principle we have ten types of media: for reading, listening, viewing at the local, national and global level, and the internet, the only one that approaches the global level in any meaningful sense. That national media mirror national elites in or out of position is hardly surprising, leaving us with local media as the most promising for a peace discourse.\u00a0 However, being local they are probably best at conflicts at the micro and meso levels, macro and mega conflicts being beyond their horizons.\u00a0 So we are somewhat lost.\u00a0 But that can improve.<\/p>\n

      In the Table there are four main dimensions defining the cut between the two styles of journalism.\u00a0 In one the unit of discourse is the violent act, and the violent actor, and whether the latter can be prevailed upon with a victory.\u00a0 In the other the unit of discourse is a conflict, meaning a focus on at least two actors.\u00a0 A little bit more challenging intellectually in other words, but not much.<\/p>\n

      Those actors are usually available for interviews; in fact, they would love to explain their view of the conflict.\u00a0 And that is precisely what conflict and peace journalism would focus on, their bread and butter:<\/p>\n

      \u00a0\u2011 \u201cWhat, in your view, is the conflict underlying this act of violence?\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n

      \u00a0\u2011 \u201cWhat, in your view, might be a possible way of solving that conflict?\u201d<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

      Journalists, include these two questions in your standard repertory and we are in peace journalism.\u00a0 Later on we might ask for the same level of expertise as for, say, health and finance.\u00a0 As en editor of Toronto Star once put it: All you ask is, give peace a page!\u00a0 The point is not that journalists should advocate anything; all they should do is to make peace more visible, like life signs in a coma patient. Whereas the first journalism style would focus on who wins, and see any tendency to understand the other side as an effort to justify their violence.<\/p>\n

      The table speaks for itself and extensive commentary will soon be available in Reporting Conflict: An Introduction to Peace Journalism, by Jake Lynch, Annabel McGoldrick and myself.\u00a0 Concretely, here are five ways of doing peace journalism, five “peace angles”:<\/p>\n

        \n
      1. Look at peace in general. How about devoting more journalism to reporting peace? How about reporting the remarkable peace among so many nations in Toronto and Sydney? Among Nordic, European, ASEAN states? How about generating some optimism?\u00a0 Too radical?<\/li>\n
      2. Look at peace in the midst of violence. Even during extreme violence in Yugoslavia and the Middle East some peace could be found and could be created; zones, archipelagoes. Explore them.<\/li>\n
      3. Look backward: Peace in the past. “But the situation was peaceful before, wasn’t it?\u00a0 What went wrong, and what could have been done at he time? Or was something wrong all the time?”\u00a0 These are standard mediator questions and yield good insights. Could be added to the journalist repertory, for all parties.<\/li>\n
      4. Look forward: Peace in the future. Again an example of a standard mediator question:\u00a0 “How does the Korea\/Yugoslavia\/Gulf region\/Iraq etc. look that you would like to live in?”\u00a0 Elicit proposals, and, of course, watch out for proposals that have already been articulated, and do deep journalistic probing.<\/li>\n
      5. Look sideward: Peace elsewhere. All conflicts are unique, and all share something with other conflicts, like patients and diseases.\u00a0 Switzerland is often mentioned.\u00a0 How about checking\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 such analogies? Could what is somewhere become feasible elsewhere?<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

        As conflict is a part of the human condition, and violence may be the outcome anywhere in the world when the parties see no way out, the place to start is everywhere and “everywhen”.\u00a0 Don’t wait for violence to occur, be ahead of the violence.<\/p>\n

        A peace proposal may be peace in statu nascendi<\/em>.\u00a0 Here is one:<\/p>\n

        Israel\/Palestine\/Middle East \u2011 A Transcend Perspective<\/h3>\n

        For Israel and Palestine there is no security at the end of this road of violence; only increased violence and insecurity.<\/p>\n

        Israel is now in the most dangerous period of its history: increasingly militarist, fighting unwinnable wars, increasingly isolated and with ever more enemies, exposed to violence, non\u2011 violence and boycott from within and without with the USA sooner or later making support conditional on concessions. The basic change in South Africa, from inside and outside, comes to mind:<\/p>\n