Wasatia – A Way to enduring peace in Palestine
by
Nikolaus Knoepffler1 & Martin O’Malley2
In the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, peace appeals are unpersuasive for groups with embedded risk-averse commitments. Negotiating compromise options exposes parties to risks more costly than risks of non-negotiation in terms of both actual negotiation options, as well as political risks associated with perceived weakness from negotiators’ own constituents. The present situation is described as one hindered by „hard hearts“ where entrenched risk-aversion impedes negotiation progress, even when progress is defined in parties’ subjectively defined “best interests”. Stated differently, each party is locked into negotiation patterns contrary to their own best interests. The Wasatia concept from Mohammed Dajani’s Wasatia Movement provides a substantial religiously- and culturally-embedded idea of „moderation“ addressing hard-heart negotiation deadlock. It differentiates maximalist and realistic interest options, and generates strategies for “small-way” paths with sustainable perceived risks. Minimalist options build trust and eventually result in more flourishing, more stable societies. Using comparisons to Aristotle’s ethical approach, the paper shows that Wasatia includes a pragmatic „justice“ conception that is also analogous to, and consistent with the Mutual Gains Approach for negotiation. The grass-rooted Wasatia approach is a rich moral and negotiation resource that prioritize pragmatic decision-making and social flourishing goals.
Keywords: Wasatia, Israeli-Palestinian conflict, conflict resolution, peace settlement, Aristotle, commitment problems, game theory