Rethinking the Middle East Crisis: An Interview with David Peter Stroh
by Kali Saposnick

Copyright © 2002 Pegasus Communications, Inc. (www.pegasuscom.com). All rights reserved. No part of this article may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying and recording, without written permission from Pegasus Communications, Inc. If you wish to distribute copies of this article, please contact our Permissions Department at 781-398-9700 or permissions@pegasuscom.com.

Having just arrived on sabbatical in Israel when the September 2000 Intifada erupted, David Peter Stroh and his wife Marilyn Paul were caught up in conversations and media reports that focused on two questions: "Why now?" and "Who is to blame?" Stroh's growing frustration with these reactive questions led him to produce a systemic analysis of why the crisis seems to persist despite people's extensive efforts to resolve it. An article based on this work appeared in the June/July issue of The Systems Thinker® Newsletter. In it, David illuminates the thinking of Palestinians, Israelis, and their allies—and the consequences of their thoughts and actions on the results they're achieving—in ways that may help all parties see and achieve sustainable new solutions.

In the following interview, David shares some thinking about the ongoing conflict and people's reaction to his work on this topic.

"When I compared the event-oriented debates happening on all sides with a more powerful set of systemic questions, I became motivated to answer those questions," says Stroh. "The Israelis wonder why they keep investing so much in security, yet they never feel secure. The Palestinians feel they sacrifice so much for respect and sovereignty, yet they seem to get neither. Peace brokers ask why they can't implement what seems like a sensible solution. Over time, as I began to get some insights, I got excited about the possibility of finding a way to communicate them to people, whether it be third parties or political leaders, so they could be more effective in the peace process."

A New Way of Thinking
Many people with whom Stroh has shared his analysis consider it a new way of thinking about the conflict, one they had not considered before. They especially appreciate the causal loop diagrams, which can help people visualize the unintended consequences and self-defeating nature of their actions—for instance, the current dependence of both sides on using force as the primary way to achieve their goals. Reviewers think a systems view might help both sides transcend their historical self-perceptions as victims and take responsibility for their own aggression. They also believe that, when negotiations resume—as they are likely to do again at some point—the insight into the ways in which extremists have successfully derailed previous peace processes will be essential to preventing such derailments in the future.

Additional feedback to David's analysis includes a response from an Israeli colleague, who pointed out a flaw in David's original thinking—that the conflict is primarily about escalation. He identified an even more powerful dynamic at work—"conflicting goals"—that David incorporated into the analysis. In this case, the "conflicting goals" structure reflects the competing expectations among people on each side for peaceful co-existence on the one hand and total control of all of the historical land of Palestine on the other. Stroh also showed his analysis to a moderate Palestinian, who looked at it and concluded, "We are not responsible for the problem. The fear of the Israelis is that of a thief."

"What's tricky," says David, "is that systems thinking is still a mode of 'thinking'—not the default mode for people who are caught in a highly emotional, life-and-death situation. The Israelis and Palestinians are also operating in a 'shifting the burden,' or an addictive, structure; they don't understand that the built-up mistrust and hatred that their actions produce make it harder to achieve the negotiated solution many want. So one of the analysis's limitations is that it's a rational approach to a very emotionally charged problem."

Nevertheless, systems thinking can help people make emotional shifts when it's introduced properly. "I've facilitated dialogues in the U.S. in which I've been experimenting with role play," explains Stroh. "I give people parts in the conflict and have them express those voices as a way of stirring the emotional intensity that's there. This is of course easier to do in the States, where people are more removed from the conflict."

Another discovery David and Marilyn have made is that when people don't understand systems thinking, trying to help them develop a systemic understanding of the conflict is quite a leap. "Ideally, there needs to be a tutorial in systems thinking beforehand," Stroh comments. "I would start with something as simple as asking, 'In a conflict, how do the thinking and actions of one party influence the thinking and actions of the other?' or 'How might you unintentionally be contributing to the very problems you're trying to solve?' This type of dialogue begins to develop such an understanding."

An Innovative Tool for Diplomacy
Stroh feels that his systemic analysis of the Middle East crisis is going to be particularly useful for people involved in multi-track diplomacy—especially those engaged in influencing and supporting the peace-making process rather than the direct protagonists. Once third parties understand the underlying forces at work, they can find ways to translate their insights into an appropriate process for political leaders. "As a negotiator, clarifying the dynamics can make you a lot more efficient in knowing what leverage points to aim for," says Stroh. "You're also less likely to get drawn into taking sides and reinforcing blame, two factors which have been major problems throughout the third-party negotiation process."

Many people have asked David what they can do to help resolve the crisis. Having grappled with this question for some time, he's been evolving a set of specific interventions for the different parties involved. He's also sent multiple versions of the article to different communities to address their distinct concerns. For instance, foreign policy makers want to know what the U.S. administration and European governments can do, while negotiators wonder what innovative tools they can use in developing peace agreements.

A direct result of Stroh's analysis is that he's just been named a fellow at the Conflict Management Group in Cambridge, MA, where he will bring the ideas of systems thinking to conflict resolution professionals. He also helped to establish a chapter of the Society for Organizational Learning (SoL) in Israel and is working to establish a SoL chapter for Palestinians. Through his ongoing efforts to contribute to the Middle East peace process, Stroh is modeling for all of us the power of each individual to make a difference by developing our capacity to delve into the systemic aspects of any protracted problem.

Kali Saposnick is publications editor at Pegasus Communications, Inc.