An op-ed published in the New York Times (authored by U of M anthropologist Scott Atran!) today examined aggregated survey data from the past four years to try and discern what concessions would be supported by Isrealis and Palestians to ultimately achieve peace.  While the essay acknowledges that peace is hardly a likely outcome in this volatile region, the survey data does reveal how the process of brokering peace should be approached.

In the survey, respondants were given several scenarios in which each side made a large, difficult concession in exchange for peace.  In the first scenario, each side simply made a large concession, like a two state solution which would yield a Jewish state of Isreal and a Palestinian state composed of the West Bank and Gaza.  The second scenario would provide additional incentives, like $10 billion a year given to Palestine from Western nations.  In the final scenario, a more symbolic gesture was offered, like an official apology from Israel to Palestine for displacing Palestinians in the 1948 war.

In the survey, the first two conditions were repeatedly shot down by both sides.  The second condition was especially contested, as both sides saw this monetary gift as a sort of impersonal, offensive deal that likened the conflict and suffering to a business transaction.  The final condition, however, where an apology was offered, was much more frequently accepted, especially among those that had vehemently rejected the two former proposals.  Overall, Palestinians were much more likely to identify Israel’s right to exist if Israel apologized for the suffering inflicted in the 1948 war, while Israelis were much more likely to agree to a partitioning of Jerusalem if Palestinians simply recognized Israel’s right to exist.

While the value of an apology doesn’t seem like the logical solution to this deeply entrenched conflict, the results of this study indicate that saying, “sorry,” might just be the first logical step for both sides.  Rather than just trying to reach another short-lived cease-fire, peace brokers should take a look at the reconcillation practices of past conflicts in South Africa and Rwanda, where Truth and Reconciliation Commissions helped both sides to open up, confess, and apolgize.  Though the Isreali/Palestinian conflict is complex and deep-seated, the simplicity of an “I’m sorry,”  might just get the peace process rolling.