“Deliberative Communication” helps to resolve ethnopolitical conflicts — like that of Israel and the Palestinians — says communications expert

By Judie Jacobson ~

JERUSALEM – Dr. Donald G. Ellis is a professor of communication at the University of Hartford in West Hartford, where he teaches courses in communication theory, intercultural communication, conflict, political communication, and language and communication. Ellis, who earned his Ph.D. from the University of Utah, is interested in communication issues related to ethnopolitical conflict with particular emphasis on conflict resolution, intractable conflicts, intercultural communication, and democracy.

Dr. Donald G. Ellis

Ellis is also the author of numerous books and articles including the recently published “Deliberative Communication and Ethnopolitical Conflict.” He was a fellow at the Asch Center for the Study of Ethnopolitical Conflict at the University of Pennsylvania, and a Fulbright Scholar in Israel in 2004-2005. He is also the author of “Middle East Mirror,” a blog that focuses on politics and conflict in the Middle East with particular attention to Israel and its neighbors.
Currently on sabbatical in Israel, Ellis will be teaching at Ariel University, located northwest of Jerusalem on the subject of ethnopolitical conflicts and deliberation. He also taught a short course at Ariel U last summer. This includes issues and conflict resolution, intractable conflicts, and the deliberative process that is most ideal for managing conflicts such as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. He will also be working with Israeli colleagues on deliberating problems in Israeli communities, as well as on his next book about the role of communication in managing the differences between multi-cultural groups.
Recently, the Ledger spoke with Dr. Ellis about his work in Israel and insight into the mood in the Jewish state.

Q:  Have you been on sabbatical in Israel before? If so, how has the country changed since last you visited?
A: Actually this will be the third time I have been in Israel on sabbatical. I was a Fulbright Scholar in 2004-2005 living in Tel Aviv and teaching at Tel Aviv University. And I spent three months in Jerusalem in 1998. I’ve been to Israel numerous other times on short trips.
Israel is a complex country and has changed in some small ways. The majority of people want peace but are frustrated at the process. They remain concerned about violence and terrorism, so continue to elect conservative political leaders (e.g. Netanyahu) because it gives them a sense of security. Israel also has increasing internal divisions and tensions – secular versus religious, traditional versus modern, liberal versus conservative, Orthodox versus Orthodox, as well as economic and housing problems. Still, Israel is a cohesive culture with a strong national identity. People come together and coalesce when they need to.

Q: Your new book talks about “deliberative communication” as a way of helping to resolve the Israel-Palestinian conflict. Can you explain what you mean?
A: I recently published a book called “Deliberative Communication and Ethnopolitical Conflict.” Ethnopolitical conflicts are deep seeded conflicts that are difficult to resolve because politics and group identity are implicated. The conflicts are not “rational,” such as how to divide up land or resources because such land or resources are considered sacred and part of group identity. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the prototypical example of an ethnopolitical conflict. Religion, emotions, sanctity, and group identity are all intertwined to make for a very difficult conflict that does not have simple or correct answers. The only way for conflicting groups to reach across their divides is through communication. Only communication can transcend the gaps that separate people. They might fight and kill each other for any number of years but eventually they have to talk to each other. Deliberative communication is a type of communication based on democratic fairness. Deliberative communication has essentially five qualities: first, it is based on argument and reason. The goal is to try to have the best arguments that are acceptable to everyone become most apparent.  Secondly, deliberative communication requires relationships to be fair and equal among participants. They must genuinely listen and respect the reality of the perspective of the other, even if they disagree with it. Third, the communicating groups strive for consensus. Ultimately, you want everybody to be committed to a decision. Groups do not have to agree with all aspects of decisions but they have to be willing to live with it. Communication continues until this is achieved. Fourth, traditional power and authority can be challenged and questioned.
And finally, they must communicate under conditions of contact that guarantee equality with no one group dominating the interaction.
Deliberative communication is an ideal to strive for. But it is very powerful when groups finally decide to work out their problems properly. The deliberative communication process is successful at bridging differences and helping groups construct new realities and new conditions that are amenable to peace.

Q:  How can the deliberative process help in managing the Israeli/Palestinian conflict?
A:  There are no simple answers or correct answers to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Neither side is going to simply give in and accept the conditions of the other. Hence, they need some way to solve their problems and still have each side maintain its integrity and sense of well-being. One of the strengths of deliberation is its ability to force competing sides into engaging one another intellectually, through the use of good argument, and therefore generate new ideas and knowledge. All of us are only capable of thinking within the boundaries of our own knowledge and abilities. Communication allows one to participate in the intelligence of others and therefore integrate my own knowledge and intelligence with yours. No one in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is going to get everything he or she wants. Deliberation is a way to maximize the mutual gains and interests of both sides. In my book I explain how deliberation is more than just talk for negotiation purposes. It is a special kind of communication from which a better consensus can emerge.

Q:  You note that you will be working with some Israeli colleagues on deliberating problems in Israeli communities. As you see it, what are some of those problems that need attention?
A:  Deliberation is particularly applicable to local community problems, not only the larger Israeli-Palestinian issue. I will be working with some colleagues on how citizens communicate to solve problems with respect to their municipality including issues such as water, education, and budgeting. I have a few other research projects with Israeli colleagues that explore the best methods of communicating certain types of information such as how to frame arguments so they are more likely to be understood. A colleague and I, Dr. Maoz from Hebrew University, have been working for some years on understanding the communication patterns between Israelis and Palestinians.
Q:  After meeting with Bibi Netanyahu last week in Jerusalem, Sen. John McCain issued a statement strongly criticizing the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff for calling Iran a “rational” actor and cautioning Israel not to attack. McCain said: “There should be no daylight between America and Israel in our assessment of the [Iranian] threat. Unfortunately, there clearly is some.” Does it seem to you that Israelis tend to agree with McCain on this issue?
A:  There are differences between Netanyahu and Obama that do result in tension. There are a group of people — mostly conservative Republicans — who consider Israel to be on the front lines of terrorism and identify strongly with the culture for both religious and political reasons. They believe there should be no daylight between the two countries and we should walk arm in arm. Of course, Netanyahu appeals to this group. But Obama is slower and a little bit more diplomatic. Conservative Israelis do blame Obama for not being sufficiently supportive. They, as you would expect, want the complete unconditional support of the United States. So many Israelis agree with McCain but not everyone.
Q:  Along the same lines: Is there a sense among Israelis that the country will soon take military action against Iran? If so, are Israelis behind that decision? What is your sense of the mood in Israel?
A:  Most Israelis do not want to bomb Iran if it at all can be avoided. But, on the other hand, much of Israeli foreign policy is based on existential threat. Israelis see a threat to their very existence. A single nuclear bomb would do a lot of damage to Iran but the Iranian culture would survive. That’s not so true of Israel. Israel is what is called a “one bomb country.” One nuclear bomb could essentially eliminate Israel. Only the people in positions of leadership in Israel know what they will do and know the quality of intelligence necessary to be successful.
But my guess is that Israel will not take military action against Iranian nuclear sites yet. They may do it, and they are certainly capable of doing it, but I think they realize how serious and consequential it would be.
A unilateral preemptive strike on Iranian nuclear sites would be extremely provocative. And there are plenty of reasons not to do it. Israel would be an isolated pariah state and even more despised by the Arab world then it already is. A preemptive strike by Israel would probably not eliminate all potential nuclear sites, and it certainly would not eliminate the knowledge necessary to rebuild. A preemptive strike would justify retaliation. And as of now there’s no reason
not to let sanctions play out further.
Decisions like these are sometimes referred to as 1% decisions. This means that the probability of something occurring (Iran using a nuclear weapon on Israel) is very small (1%) but the consequences of being wrong are catastrophic. That’s the difficulty of the decision. If  you assume Iran is a rational actor then they will not use the bomb; but you’re in real trouble if you’re wrong. It’s like the old quip attributed to Mark Twain: “Go ahead and put all your eggs in one basket, but watch that basket!”
Q:  Along the same lines… are Israelis watching closely the events unfolding in Syria? Are they more concerned that Assad will fall or remain standing?
A:  Instability is always a problem for Israel. On the other hand, any movement towards increased democracy and freedom in Syria is in the long run to Israel’s benefit. The fall of Assad could bring about the rise of Sunni power and a more difficult Syria to deal with. Still, Assad is a dictator who supports Hezbollah. I’m sure most Israelis prefer him gone.

Q:  Any final thoughts or observations on Israel that you would like to share?
A:  Israel is simply one of the most interesting cultures in the world. It’s a small place but rich in history and politics. The world’s attention is drawn to Israel because it is the home of the Abrahamic religions as well as steeped in political and cultural conflicts. As a strong democracy Israel is open and available; hence there is a strong flow of news about Israel. The world focuses on Israel’s religious, political, and cultural issues because solving these issues has implications for the management of conflict.

To read Dr. Ellis’ blog, visit www.middleeastmirror.com.