Issuu on Google+

About
Us
 Global
Majority
is
an
incorporated,
501(C)
3
non‐profit
organization
promoting
non‐violent
conflict
resolution
education,
negotiation,
mediation
and
 advocacy.
We
believe
that
an
overwhelming
majority
of
the
global
population
aspires
to
live
in
peace
and
will
embrace
the
tools
and
reforms
necessary
 to
advance
this
call.
We
invite
you
to
join
us
in
making
our
vision
a
reality!


Mission
 Global
Majority
promotes
non‐violent
conflict
resolution
through
education,
mediation
and
advocacy.
We
believe
that
principled
dialogue
is
imperative
 and
must
replace
violent
conflict
if
humankind
is
to
thrive.


International
Advisory
Board
Members:

 Praveen
Abhayaratne,
Sri
Lanka;
Catalina
Acevedo,
Colombia;
Tatsushi
Arai,
Japan;
Paul
J.
Arthur,
North
Ireland;
Rita
Cameron
Wedding,
USA;
Maria
 Chan,
Singapore;
Richard
Butler,
Australia;
Daniel
Garcia
Peña,
Colombia;
Juan
Guzmán
Tapia,
Chile;
Nadia
Hashimi,
Afghanistan;
Luz
Maria
Helguero,
 Peru;
Tetsuya
Ishizuka,
Japan;
Mitsuru
Kurosawa,
Japan;
Ebba
Lindgren,
Sweden;
Bernard
Lown,
USA;
Jeffrey
Mapendere,
Zimbabwe;
Mavis
Matenge,
 Botswana;
William
Monning,
USA;
Boatamo
Mospuyoe,
South
Africa;
Mohamed
Mouknass,
Mauritania;
Joyce
Neu,
USA;
Jeannette
Ndhlovu,
South
 Africa;
Joanna
Franco‐Rojas,
Colombia;
Arjan
Shahani‐Moreno,
Mexico;
Hillel
Schenker,
Israel;
Maya
Soetoro‐Ng,
Indonesia/USA;
Madoua
Teko‐Folly,
 Togo;
Isatou
Touray,
the
Gambia;
Sanho
Tree,
Taiwan/USA;
Dinesh
Tripathi,
Nepal;
Ramiz
Younis,
Palestine.


Board
of
Directors:

 Lejla
Mavris
(Bosnia‐Herzegovina/USA),
President;
Nicholas
Tomb
(USA),
Vice
President;
Michael
Buckley
(USA),
Treasurer;
Jaala
Thibault
(USA),
 Secretary;
Cameron
Hunter
(USA);
Oshen
Morphy
(Nigeria);
Boatamo
Mosupyoe
(S.
Africa);
Nathan
Voegeli
(USA);
&

Izumi
Wakugawa
(Japan).


THE
GLOBAL
PLEDGE
 Declaration
of
Principles
 Promoting
Dialogue:
Giving
Voice
to
the
Global
Majority
 Preamble:
Recognizing
that
violence
is
too
often
the
preferred
option
for
resolving
conflict
and
that
the
spiral
of
violence
continues
to
impact
 innocents;
considering
the
need
to
convert
global
military
budgets
to
investment
in
programs
that
will
uplift
the
human
condition;
recognizing
the
 multi‐faceted
nature
of
violence
rooted
in
political
marginalization,
poverty,
racial
and
gender
discrimination,
environmental
degradation,
population
 displacement,
and
inadequate
healthcare
(especially
as
manifest
in
HIV/AIDS
crisis),
and
believing
that
the
global
majority
want
peace
but
too
often
 lack
a
voice
in
the
decisions
affecting
our
lives,
I
endorse
the
following
principles
as
part
of
the
Global
Majority
Pledge
with
the
goal
of
developing
a
 global
network
to
pressure
governments
and
others
resorting
to
violence
to
sit
down
and
negotiate:
 



*
Peace
can
be
achieved
through
the
active
participation
of
the
global
majority;
 



*
Non‐violent
conflict
resolution
(NVCR)
must
be
adopted
and
practiced
by
all;
 



*
Constructive
dialogue,
negotiation,
mediation,
and
other
forms
of
non
violent
conflict
resolution
can
replace
military
and
armed
conflict;
 



*
Gender,
racial,
and
ethnic
equality
must
be
respected
as
critical
to
the
achievement
of
effective
cooperation
and
dialogue
among
people
and
should
 be
prioritized
in
education,
government
relations,
business,
and
diplomacy;
 



*
Inclusion
of
diverse
stakeholders
and
interest
groups
in
constructive
dialogue
is
critical
to
the
achievement
of
durable
and
non‐violent
alternatives
 to
violence;
 



*
To
be
human
is
to
respect
the
humanity
of
others.
Respect
can
be
cultivated,
earned,
and
modeled;
 



*
Social
responsibility
must
be
practiced
and
promoted
by
all
sectors
of
the
global
community
including
civil
society,
governments,
businesses,
labor,
 religious
organizations,
academia,
the
media,
and
the
military;
 



*
Non‐violent
direct
action
that
is
creative
and
supportive
of
dialogue
should
be
supported
at
the
local,
regional,
and
global
level
among
individuals,
 organizations,
and
networks;






*
The
practice
of
peace
will
build
the
path
to
peace.



Introduction
 Cameron
Hunter
 Executive
Director
and
Board
of
 Directors,
Global
Majority


For
the
second
year
in
a
row,
Global
 Majority
facilitated
Promoting
Peace
 through
Dialogue:
Middle
East
Session,
a
 monumental
two
week
symposium
on
 negotiation,
mediation,
and
conflict
 resolution.

The
seminar,
which
ran
from
 July
20–31,
2008,
followed
by
a
two
day
 international
conference
addressed
 conflict
in
the
Middle
East.

The
event
 took
place
in
the
strategically
selected
 location
of
Amman,
Jordon—a
country
 known
for
its
reputation
as
a
mediator
 and
promoter
of
peace
in
Middle
East
 politics—hosted
by
the
United
Nations
 University
International
Leadership


and
students
from
various
countries


structures;
and
religion.

The
consensus


together
to
engage
in
discussions


was
that
all
of
these
issues
require


regarding
participation
of
civil
society
in


listening,
caution
and
sensitivity
with


the
promotion
of
non‐violence
as
a
means


political
discourse
and
diction,
and
the


of
resolving
conflicts
and
generating


necessity
of
finding
common
ground
and


lasting
peace
strategies.
The
agenda


objectives.


encouraged
unconditional
negotiation
 without
aggression
and
promotion
of


Institute
(UNU‐ILI).


dialogue
and
understanding
across


Exactly
60
years
after
the
establishment
 of
the
State
of
Israel,
Global
Majority
and


national
and
cultural
boundaries.


This
comprehensive
and
proactive
event
 concluded
with
the
formation
of
new
 friendships,
relationships
and
ideas,
as
 well
as
commitment
to
new—and


The
seminar
and
conference
provided
a


continuation
of
existing—peace


venue
for
discussion
of
serious
and


initiatives.

Perseverance,
hope
and


controversial
questions
regarding
gender


unconditional
dialogue
are
the
keys
to


aspects
in
the
Middle
East,
non‐state


lasting
peace.

Only
through
the
desire


actors,
and
the
role
of
the
United
States
in


and
sheer
will
of
the
global
majority
who


the
Israel‐Palestine
conflict,
among


aspire
to
live
in
peace
rather
than
violent


others.

In
addition
to
these
current


conflict
will
such
altruistic
aims
of
this


topics,
the
event
also
presented
lectures


seminar
and
conference
be
achieved;


and
panels
dedicated
to
examining


Promoting
Peace
through
Dialogue:


International
Relations
theory;


Middle
East
Session
2008
resulted
in
a


transitional
justice;
analyses
of
the
1967


clear
declaration
of
all
involved
that
the


War
and
the
Oslo
accords;
the
impact
of


international
community
continues
to



This
enlightening
event
brought


the
Separation
Wall
and
restriction
of


strive
for
a
better
and
more
peaceful


diplomats,
professionals,
community


Palestinian
movement;
elimination
of
bias


world.


leaders,
peace
activists,
representatives


and
stereotypes
to
ensure
fair
mediation;


from
non‐governmental
organizations,


the
role
of
the
family
and
cultural
social


UNU‐ILI,
in
addition
to
an
international
 group
of
participants
and
co‐sponsoring
 organizations,
reconvened
to
discuss
the
 complex
issues
of
prolonged
violence
and
 unrest
afflicting
the
region.

Lectures
and
 panels
focused
on
the
theory
and
practice
 of
conflict
resolution,
drew
upon
past
and
 current
conflicts
around
the
world,
and
 then
applied
the
techniques
and
lessons
 learned
from
those
conflicts
to
the
 Israel/Palestine
debate.


“Promoting
Peace
through
Dialogue”
Amman
2008
participants
at
the
United
Nations
University­
 International
Leadership
Institute


"Promoting
Peace
through
Dialogue”
Amman
2008



About
this
Event
 Global
Majority,
hosted
by
the
United
Nations
University‐ International
Leadership
Institute,
facilitated
a
two‐week
 graduate
course
on
international
negotiation,
mediation
and
 conflict
resolution
from
July
20
to
August
3,
2008.
“Promoting
 Peace
Through
Dialogue,
Middle
East
Session”
took
place
in
 Amman,
Jordan,
and
trained
thirty‐seven
students
and
 professionals
from
around
the
world,
including
representatives
 from
the
King
Abdullah
II
Fund
for
Development.
The
 attendees
came
together
to
learn
and
apply
conflict
resolution
 techniques
and
theory
from
over
thirty
speakers,
trainers
and
 professors,
focusing
on
the
conflict
in
Israel‐Palestine.



Global
Majority
is
an
international,
nonprofit
organization
that
 promotes
non‐violent
resolution
of
conflict
through
education,
negotiation,
 mediation
and
advocacy.
Global
Majority’s
international
education
and
 training
workshops
and
conferences
promote
peace
through
dialogue,
 including
advocacy
campaigns
that
embody
its
aim
to
give
voice
to
the
 global
majority
who
aspire
to
live
in
peace.
Along
with
research
and
analysis
 of
current
and
past
conflicts
and
resolution
practices,
Global
Majority
is
 building
an
alliance
of
organizations
and
global
citizens
devoted
to
peace
 and
alternative
dispute
resolution.


The
UNU
Leadership
Institute
(UNU‐ILI)
is
part
of
a
 worldwide
network
of
United
Nations
University
Research
and
Training
 Centers.
The
UNU
is
dedicated
to
the
generation
and
transfer
of
 knowledge,
and
the
strengthening
of
individual
and
institutional
capacities
 in
furtherance
of
the
purposes
and
principles
of
the
Charter
of
the
United
 Nations.
The
mission
of
UNU
is
to
contribute
through
research
and
 capacity‐building
to
efforts
to
resolve
the
pressing
global
problems
that
are
 a
concern
of
the
United
Nations,
its
Peoples
and
Member
States.

 


Organizational
Endorsements

 
 Palestine‐Israel
Journal

 www.pij.org
 OneVoice
Movement

 www.onevoicemovement.org
 AmmanNet

 www.ammannet.net
 Interfaith
Peace‐Builders

 www.interfaithpeacebuilders.org
 Resource
Center
for
Nonviolence
 www.rcnv.org
 Monterey
Institute
of
International
Studies
 www.miis.edu
 Israel/Palestine
Center
for
Research
and
Information
 www.ipcri.org
 Monterey
College
of
Law

 www.montereylaw.edu
 RockRose
Institute

 www.rockroseinstitute.org
 Middle
East
Peace
Platform
for
Peacemakers
 www.mepeace.org
 
‐
aliquam.



 


INTERNATIONAL
TRAINING
SEMINAR
 
 4
 I.
Conflict,
Resolution
and
Justice
in
International
Relations
 
 Theory
 
 
 5
 II.
Introduction
to
Interest‐Based
Negotiations
 
 
 6
 III.
Israel‐Palestine
Conflict:
Palestinian
Perspective
 
 
 6
 IV.
Israel‐Palestine
Conflict:
Israeli
Perspective
 
 
 7
 V.
Cooperative
Advocacy
 
 
 7
 VI.
Introduction
to
Mediation
 
 
 
 8
 VII.
Examining
Implicit
Bias
in
the
Context
of
Negotiation
 
 and
Mediation
 
 
 9
 Simulation:
Multi‐Lateral
Negotiation
and
Mediation
 
 
 9
 VIII.
Gender
Aspects
in
Conflict
Resolution
 
 
 10
 IX.
Women
and
Conflict
Resolution
 
 
 10
 X.
Track
I
and
II
Diplomacy
 
 
 11
 XI.
Conflict
Resolution
Across
Cultures
 
 
 12
 XII.

Case
Study:
Northern
Ireland
 
 
 13
 XIII.
Case
Study:
South
Africa
 
 
 
 INTERNATIONAL
CONFERENCE
(select
panels)
 
 
 
 14
 XIV.
Opening
Keynote
Address
 
 
 15
 XV.
Prospects
for
Peace:
Possibilities
and
challenges
 
 
 
 Appendix
 17
 Amman
Declaration
of
Global
Majority
 
 
 
 18
 International
Seminar
and
Conference
Agenda
 
 
 19
 Additional
Resources
 
 
 Multi‐Lateral
Negotiation/Mediation
Simulation
 20
 Instructions
 
 
 
 23
 Project
Expenses
and
Income
 
 
 25
 Biographies:
Faculty
and
Conference
Speakers

 
 
 30
 Student
Participants
 Published
by
Global
Majority

 
 479
Pacific
Street
Suite
5C,
Monterey,
CA
93940
www.globalmajority.org
 Kit
Alviz,
Kate
Holland,
Rebecca
Walters
 
 Copyright
Global
Majority.

All
rights
reserved.
No
part
of
this
publication
may
 
 be
reproduced
without
the
prior
written
permission
of
Global
Majority.
 
 Cover
design
by
www.beyondgrafix.com
 
 



 
 


"Promoting
Peace
through
Dialogue”
Amman
2008



International
Training
Seminar
 I.
Conflict,
Resolution
and
 Justice
in
International
 Relations
Theory


Presented
by
Michael
Buckley
 Global
Majority
Board
of
Directors;
Professor
 Lehman
College,
New
York


•  Analyzes
how
 transnational
institutions
 impact
policy
decisions;
 •  States
are
among
the
key
 actors
of
international
 affairs,
but
not
the
only
 one.
 •  International
institutions
 to
varying
degrees
 constrain
state
actions
and
 facilitate
cooperation
by
 creating
conditions
of
 trust,
creating
symmetric
 access
to
information
and
 reducing
transaction
costs.
 •  Within
this
framework,
 conflict
is
viewed
as
a
 natural
feature
of
global
 affairs.

However,
since
 interdependence
facilitates
 cooperation
among
states,
 conflict
resolution
is
 perceived
as
outcomes
 that
promote
absolute
 gains,
not
simply
those
 that
improve
a
state’s
 relative
advantage.


Normative
Theory


•  Focuses
on
the
possibility
of
 cooperation
for
mutual
 gain;

 •  Insecure
states
must
ask
to
 what
extent
the
gain
will
be
 divided.
 •  Even
the
prospect
of
large
 absolute
gains
for
both
 parties
does
not
elicit
their
 cooperation
so
long
as
each
 fears
how
the
other
will
use
 its
increased
capabilities.
 •  Within
this
paradigm,
 conflict
is
interpreted
as
a
 natural
condition
of
 international
affairs.

States
 perceive
each
other
as
 threats
and
seek
to
improve
 their
relative
position
with
 respect
to
their
neighbors.

 The
resolution
of
conflict
is
 conceived
as
establishing
a
 balance
of
power,
the
 equilibrium
point
resulting
 from
each
states
pursuit
of
 power.


Neo‐Liberalist
Theory


•  Focuses
on
how
 decentralized
nature
 and
the
anarchical
 world
order
places
 security
pressures
on
 states;
 •  Security
of
the
state
is
 the
primary
concern
 given
the
absence
of
an
 overarching
authority
 capable
of
enforcing
 laws.
 •  Within
this
analytical
 framework,
states
are
 thought
to
be
the
key
 units
of
action
in
 international
affairs.

 Moreover,
they
are
 believed
to
act
 rationally
with
respect
 to
their
interests,
which
 are
construed
in
terms
 of
maximizing
security
 and
power.


Neo‐Realist
Theory


Realist
Theory


What
is
conflict?
Is
it
a
bad
thing,
or
a
natural
part
of
 life?

Understanding
conflict
through
multiple
lenses
 increases
the
probability
of
achieving
a
peaceful
 resolution.
In
international
relations,
the
following
 political
theories
are
the
most
common:


•  Capabilities
Approach:
 •  This
moral
theory
is
 rooted
in
the
idea
that
 all
human
beings
share
 basic
capabilities
and
 that
state
policy
can
 either
promote
or
 disrupt
these
 capacities.
 •  These
capabilities
are
 social
entitlements
and
 their
protection
is
the
 minimum
standard
by
 which
state
actions
can
 be
judged.
 •  While
realist
and
neo‐ liberalist
approaches
 aim
to
explain
and
 predict
state
actions,
 normative
theories
 prescribe
rather
than
 describe
actions.

For
 example,
one‐third
of
 human
deaths
are
 caused
by
preventable
 diseases;
more
 resources
devoted
to
 healthcare
would
help
 promote
this
basic
 human
capacity.



“A
key
task
of
political
theory
is
to
focus
on
deeply
disputed
questions
and
to
see
whether
 an
underlying
basis
of
agreement
can
be
found.
It
is
realistically
utopian
when
it
extends
 what
are
normally
thought
of
as
the
limits
of
practical
political
possibility.”
John
Rawls
 


"Promoting
Peace
through
Dialogue”
Amman
2008



II.
Introduction
to
 Interest‐based
 Negotiations
 Presented
by
Nicholas
Tomb
and
Izumi
 Wakugawa,
Global
Majority
Board
of
 Directors



 The
People
 ‐Research
conflict
parties
and
their
counterparts,
fears,
ambitions
and
goals
 ‐Understand
their
level
of
authority
(power
to
effect
binding
agreement)
and
reputation
as
well
as
your
own
 ‐Build
formal
and
informal
relationships

 
 Invent
Options
 ‐Create
atmosphere
of
open
brainstorming,
to
develop
multiple
options
 ‐Be
creative:
invent
multiple
options/solutions
and
use
graphics
 ‐Expand
the
"pie"
 ‐By
understanding
the
parties'
real
interests
you
can
fashion
creative
options/solutions
that
they
may
not
have
 considered
 ‐Create
a
joint
problem
solving
relationship
 ‐Invite
wild,
extreme,
unorthodox
ideas
and
options
 ‐Create
a
list
 ‐Do
not
reject
or
select
any
proposal
during
a
brainstorming
session
 
 Identify
Interests
 ‐Interests
are
what
lie
behind
positions
and
can
affect
negotiation
processes
 ‐Often
related
to
security,
sovereignty,
legitimacy,
reputation,
economic
security,
justice,
survival
needs,
moral
 commitment,
etc.
 
 Develop
BATNA
 "Best
Alternative
to
a
Negotiated
Agreement"
in
three
steps:
 






Step
#1
Develop
your
"Walk
Away
Alternative"
 






Step
#2
Build
your
BATNA
 






Step
#3
Reduce
power
of
their
BATNA


Use
Objective
Criteria
 ‐Use
of
fair
standards
to
assist
in
the
resolution
of
disputes/conflicts
 ‐Introduce
a
non‐controversial
authority
or
standard:
 ‐Precedent
decisions
(legal,
administrative,
WTO,
NAFTA,
etc.)
 ‐Industry
practice
and
standards
(example:
prevailing
wage
rates)
 ‐Scientific
studies
 ‐Expert
testimony
or
analysis
 ‐Easier
to
accept
an
"outside
authority"
or
established
standard
as
a
"fair
means"
of
dispute
resolution


"Promoting
Peace
through
Dialogue”
Amman
2008



III.

Israel‐Palestine
 Conflict:
Palestinian
 Perspective
 Presented
by
Dr.
Hassan
Barari,
Center
for


The
implementation
of
a
two‐State
 solution
would
first
require
two
 achievements:


peace
process
is
the
 absence
of
a
neutral
 

*
Full
Israeli
withdrawal
from
Gaza
 third‐party
mediator.

 and
the
West
Bank
as
established
by
 While
many
in
the
West
 UN
Resolution
242
in
November
of
 believe
the
United
 1967.




 States
to
be
an
“honest
 

*
The
East
and
West
division
of
 broker”
between
Israelis
 Jerusalem,
with
East
Jerusalem
 and
Palestinians,
many
 named
as
the
capitol
of
the
Palestine
 in
the
Near
East
feel
 Territories.
 that
the
Bush
 Administration
is
 Most
Palestinians
agree
that
this
 uninterested
in
a
 finite
land
division
must
first
be
 resolution,
given
the
 achieved
before
a
peace
initiative
can
 exclusion
of
the
Hamas
 be
implemented.

Any
policies
to
do
 otherwise
will
continue
to
undermine
 party
and
disregard
for
 Gaza‐related
issues.

 the
peace
process.

 Indeed,
the
legitimacy
 Further
contributing
to
failure
of
the
 of
Hamas
often
comes
 into
question.

Although
 democratically
elected,
Hamas
is
often
 regarded
as
a
rogue
organization
by
the
 international
community.

Many
fear
the
 influence
of
the
Lebanon‐based
Hezbollah
on
 Hamas
policies
and
actions.


IV.

Israel‐Palestine
 Conflict:
Israeli
 Perspective
 Presented
by
Ambassador
Jacob
Rosen,


Popular
Israeli
opinion
holds
 that
the
Palestinians
have
 repeatedly
denied
the
 legitimacy
of
the
State
of
 Israel.

Acts
of
terrorism
(e.g.
 suicide
bombings)
committed
 by
Palestinians
in
retaliation
 of
the
Israeli
occupation
give
 justification
to
the
Wall,
 restriction
of
Palestinian
 movement,
unequal
 treatment,
etc.
The
Israeli
 government
was
initially
 confident
that
Yasar
Arafat,
 head
of
the
Palestinian
 National
Authority,
could
be
 the
Nelson
Mandela
of
 Palestine;
however,
Arafat
 was
unable
to
unify
his
people
 and
eliminate,
or
at
least
 subdue,
the
violence.

Israelis
 look
forward
to
a
trustworthy
 and
charismatic
Palestinian
 head‐of‐State,
the
eventual
 dismantling
of
the
Wall,
and
 a
lasting
peace.
 


“A
few
years
ago
it
was
a
 big
no‐no
to
use
the
word
 Palestine,
but
you
see,
we
 are
changing
too.
Listen.
 Learn.
Don’t
just
lecture
at
 us
on
what
to
do,
but
 understand
our
 perspectives,
and
help
 offer
solutions.”
 Ambassador
Rosen


"Promoting
Peace
through
Dialogue”
Amman
2008



V.
Cooperative
Advocacy
 Presented
by
Dr.
Raja
Hiyari,
Director
of
 Partners‐Jordan
Center
for
Civic
 Collaboration




 Despite
having
more
than
3,200
Non‐Governmental
 Organizations
(NGOs),
Jordanian
civil
society
 struggles
with
putting
their
plans
of
reform
into
 action.
Part
of
the
problem
stems
from
the
fact
that
 most
of
these
NGOs
are
working
separately.
On
an
 individual
basis,
they
simply
lack
the
wherewithal
to
 make
a
difference
in
the
status
quo.
Additionally,
 most
of
the
power
and
money
needed
for
reform
 lies
with
the
government.
Although
many
of
the
 NGOs
are
working
in
close
contact
with
Jordan’s
 Parliament,
the
NGOs
have
little
to
do
with
the
law
 making
process.
This
is
to
the
detriment
of
 Jordanian
society
as
NGOs
have
more
experience
 working
on
the
ground
with
the
public,
making
 them
far
more
attuned
to
the
needs
of
the
people.
 This
knowledge,
if
utilized
properly,
is
invaluable
 for
the
government
to
make
informed
decisions
that
 could
lead
to
positive
change.

 


Ambassador
Jacob,
Embassy
of
Israel
in
Jordan


VI.
Introduction
to
 Mediation
 Presented
by
Cameron
Hunter
and
Lejla
 Mavris,
Global
Majority
Trainers
and
Board
 of
Directors
 Mediation
is
a
voluntary
process
that
allows
 parties
to
reach
an
agreement
via
dialogue
 and
negotiation
with
the
goal
of
achieving
a
 binding
and
enforceable
resolution.

 Mediators
work
with
parties
to
earn
their
 confidence
before
exploring
possible
 conflict
solutions
that
adversaries
may
not
 willingly
admit
to
one
another.

In
theory,
 parties
will
be
more
accepting
of
an
 agreement
attained
with
mediator
 participation.
The
Four
Stage
Mediation
 Process
(see
below)
fosters
the
potential
for
 negotiation
rather
than
litigation
in
 international,
community‐based
and
 personal
conflicts.


Dr.
Hassan
Barari,
Center
for
Strategic
Studies,
 University
of
Jordan


The
way
towards
reform
lies
in
coalition
building
between
the
NGOs
themselves,
in
 addition
to
building
a
stronger
alliance
with
the
government
in
order
to
provide
a
 powerful
framework
for
future
development.




"Promoting
Peace
through
Dialogue”
Amman
2008



“Negotiators
need
 to
elevate
their
 thinking
and
be
 aware
of
how
 these
implicit
 biases
affect
their
 thinking
and
 implementation.”
 Dr.
Cameron
 Wedding


Four
Stages
of
 Mediation
Process


Implementation
 (Create
a
timeline,
preamble
 highlighting
achievements,
 discuss
expectations)



VII.
Examining
 Implicit
Bias
in
the
 Context
of
 Negotiation
and
 Mediation


Presented
by
Dr.
Rita
Cameron
 Wedding,
Global
Majority
 International
Advisory
Board;
 Professor
and
Chair
of
Women’s
 Studies,
California
State
University
 Sacramento



Honesty


Time


Implicit
 biases


Agreement


Pre‐Mediation
 (Identify
parties
and
 mediator,

explain
and
sign
 the
Mediation
Agreement)


Mediation
 (Identify
interests,
use
 single‐text
documents,
 explore
BATNAS)


Negotiators
have
to
be
consciously
aware
of
implicit
biases
 when
working
with
groups
of
people.
In
order
to
be
an
effective
 negotiator,
one
must
recognize
the
importance
of
perception
in
 the
field
of
conflict
resolution.

Regular
exposure
to
stereotypes
 via
the
media,
social
groups,
etc.
can
permeate
the
thought
 process
and
result
in
less
intellectual
curiosity.
One
cannot
 truly
comprehend
a
culture
without
living
it.

Making
 generalizations
about
various
groups
of
people
may
result
in
a
 decrease
of
intellectual
enrichment
and
deterioration
of
 cultural
ties.

 


Media


Avoid
 generaliz ‐ing


"Promoting
Peace
through
Dialogue”
Amman
2008



“Everybody
wants
to
live
in
peace.
It
 doesn’t
matter
what
we
look
like,
we
all
 want
security
for
ourselves
and
our
 children,
we
just
want
to
live
our
lives.

 So
what
I
have
to
do
is
focus
on
our
 humanness,
to
focus
on
what
brings
us
 together,
not
what
tears
us
apart.”
Dr.
 Cameron
Wedding


About
the
Multi‐Lateral
 Negotiation
and
Mediation
 Simulation
 Group
participants
were
divided
into
nine
groups
to
 represent
Egypt,
Iran,
Iraq,
Israel,
Jordan,
Lebanon,
 Palestine,
Syria
and
the
United
States
to
address
issues
of
 border
security,
refugees
and
nuclear
weapons.
Each
 group
delegated
two
United
Nations
representatives
to
 facilitate
and
mediate
the
formulation
of
potential
 solutions
for
these
issues.
Participants
practiced
 important
skills,
such
as
preparing
opening
statements,
 identifying
consensus
vs.
divided
outcomes,
developing
 recommendations
and
policy
options,
debriefing
and
 evaluation.
This
multilateral
negotiation/mediation
 simulation
allowed
participants
to
practice
and
fine‐tune
 their
skills
in
interest‐based
negotiating
and
mediating,
 with
an
emphasis
on
developing
diplomatic
relationships
 with
their
counterparts.
 See
appendix
for
detailed
instructions
for
this
simulation.


.


VIII.
Gender
Aspects
 in
Conflict
 Resolution
 Presented
by
Dr.
Boatamo
Mosupyoe,
 Global
Majority
International
Advisory
 Board;
Professor
and
Chair
of
Pan


The
case
studies
below
help
 explain
why
the
inclusion
of
 women
and
gender
perspectives
 is
essential
in
global
efforts
 designed
to
deal
with
conflict.

 The
effects
of
conflict
and
 violence
on
women
and
men
 often
differ.

Gender
aspects
are
 an
important
element
in
peace
 building
as
the
role
of
women
is
 an
essential
component
in
 implementing
peace
agreements
 and
rebuilding
community
 solidarity.

Women
play
key


roles
not
only
in
conflict
 prevention
and
resolution,
but
 also
in
early
warning.

During
 war,
women's
central
positions
in
 afflicted
communities
often
 makes
them
more
aware
of
key
 issues
of
the
conflict
and
enables
 them
to
gather
relevant
 information
regarding
impending
 conflict.

After
conflicts
conclude,
 women
often
hold
their
families
 and
communities
together
as
 heads
of
the
households
and
 leaders
of
their
communities.


Women
in
Conflict
Zones


Case
Studies
 ��� ~

Prolonged
conflict
in
Nepal
has
put
women
and
adolescents
at
risk
by
diminishing
access
to
reproductive
health
care
service.
 ~
Zimbabwe
implemented
programs
in
1980
to
enhance
women’s
rights
regarding
illiteracy
and
economic
dependency.
 ~
UN
Development
Program
reported
that
male
students
far
outnumber
female
students
around
the
globe.
 ~
Increased
reports
of
violence
against
women
was
reported
in
the
Philippines,
North
and
Central
America,
and
several
Indonesian
countries
after
 natural
disasters.
 ~
UN
High
Commission
for
Refugees
reports
approximately
fifty
percent
of
the
displaced
refugee
populations
are
women
and
children,
who
are
 particularly
vulnerable
to
indifference,
harassment,
and
sexual
abuse.
 ~
During
Rwanda's
1994
genocide,
most
Tutsi
women
were
victims
of
gender‐based
violence;
between
250,000
and
500,000
were
raped.

An
estimated
 40,00
women
were
raped
during
the
Bosnia‐Herzegovina
war.


"Promoting
Peace
through
Dialogue”
Amman
2008



IX.

Women
and
 Conflict
Resolution


Presented
by
Dr.
Ibtesam
Al‐Atiyat,
 Program
Officer,
United
Nations
 University‐
International
 Leadership
Institute



 When
addressing
the
role
of
 women
in
Middle
East
conflict
 resolution,
it
is
important
to
first
 address
the
priorities
of
the
 women's
movement.
Is
it
women's
 rights
or
the
national
struggle
for
 liberation?
This
question
creates
 complex
situations
when
applied
 to
patriarchy,
the
Occupation,
and
 stereotypes
or
prejudices.
These
 prejudices
include
the
portrayal
of


women
as
cultural
progenitors
 and
producers
of
a
population.
 Conversely,
men
are
commonly
 viewed
as
the
liberators
and
 protectors
of
the
nation.

 
 In
the
Israel‐Palestine
conflict,
 the
augmentation
of
Palestinian
 women's
movements
has
caused
 the
politicization
of
Jewish
 feminist
circles
in
Israel.
"The
 Palestinian
women's
movement
 has
shaken
the
Jewish
feminist
 movement
in
Israel
and
abroad.
 Jewish
feminists'
silence,
 complicity
and
indifference
to
 the
struggle
of
Palestinians
 against
the
racist
Israeli
state
is
 being
broken
down."
Women
in
 Black,
who
hold
weekly
vigils
 throughout
Israel
and
Women


and
Mothers
for
Peace,
former
 activists
of
the
Four
Mothers
 Movement,
are
instrumental
in
 the
empowerment
of
women.
 The
group
Women
Engendering
 Peace
aims
to
promote
a
 harmonious,
Israeli
culture.
The
 Movement
for
the
Civil‐ization
of
 Israeli
Society
addresses
issues
of
 militarism
and
gives
support
to
 conscientious
objectors
in
Israel.

 The
Israeli
chapter
of
the
 Women’s
International
League
for
 Peace
and
Freedom
and
Noga
 Feminist
Magazine
aim
to
 transform
socialized
gender
 stereotypes
in
Israel.
Machsom‐ Watch
is
a
group
of
women
who
 monitor
and
prevent
human
 rights
violations
at
checkpoints.
 


X.

Track
I
and
II
Diplomacy


Presented
by
Dr.
Paul
Arthur,
Global
Majority
 International
Advisory
Board;
Professor,
Peace
and
 Conflict
Studies
Program,
University
of
Ulster


"Track
Two
is
not
a
substitute
for
 government‐to‐government
or
leader‐ to‐leader
contact.
At
a
general
level,
 'it
seeks
to
promote
an
environment
 in
a
political
community,
through
the
 education
of
public
opinion,
that
 would
make
it
safer
for
public
opinion
 to
take
risks
for
peace.'"
(Montville
 1986)
Track
II
Diplomacy
is
intended
 to
work
alongside
Track
I
Diplomacy.
 
 The
resolution
process
of
the
 Northern
Ireland
conflict
utilized
 both
Track
I
and
Track
II
negotiation
 techniques,
highlighting
the
 interconnectedness
of
"high
politics"
 (official
negotiations)
and
"low
 politics"
(civil
society,
dialogue‐

focused
interventions).
While
the
 Track
I
negotiations
are
more
 publicized
and
commonly
 acknowledged
as
facilitating
the
 1998
Good
Friday
Agreement
(the
 Anglo‐Irish
Agreement,
the
Forum
 for
Peace
and
Reconciliation
in
the
 Republic
of
Ireland,
and
the
 Downing
Street
Declaration),
the
 role
of
Track
II
negotiations
in
the
 conflict
illustrates
“
the
role
that
the
 ordinary
person
can
play.”
 
 The
process
of
Track
II
Diplomacy
is
 in
many
cases
more
important
than
 the
result,
unlike
Track
I
Diplomacy,
 which
is
final‐status
and
result‐

oriented.
Track
II
Diplomacy
allows
 for
the
role
of
unpredictability,
of
 serendipity,
of
randomness
and,
 above
all,
confusion.
It
creates
both
a
 space
for
parties
to
absorb
new
 information
to
understand
conflict
 as
well
as
a
space
for
dialogue
 outside
of
the
media
and
highly
 strenuous
political
situations.
This
 can
be
done
at
a
workshop,
through
 storytelling
and
art,
or
at
the
dinner
 table.
The
result
is
the
adaptation,
or
 maturation,
into
a
form
of
 communication
that
is
non‐ threatening
and
beneficial
to
 involved
parties.

 


"Promoting
Peace
through
Dialogue”
Amman
2008



XI.
Conflict
Resolution
Across
 Cultures



Presented
by
Dr.
Tatsushi
Arai,
Global
Majority
 International
Advisory
Board;
Professor,
School
for


It
is
imperative
to
understand
the
 cultural
patterns
of
thinking
and
 behavior
when
addressing
conflict
 resolution
across
cultures.
This
 includes
the
sense
of
what
is
just
and
 unjust,
moral
and
immoral,
 acceptable
and
unacceptable,
which
 becomes
most
visible
through
 manifestations
or
conflict
dynamics,
 especially
in
cross‐cultural
conflict.
 Hence,
to
practice
effective
conflict
 resolution
and
mediation,
one
must
 attain
cultural
fluency,
which
can
be
 described
as
a
readiness
to:
 ‐
Anticipate
a
range
of
possible
 scenarios
about
how
our
future


relationships
will
evolve
in
 unfamiliar
cultural
contexts,
 
 ‐
Remain
conscious
of
unfamiliar
 cultural
influences
that
come
to
 be
embedded
in
our
meaning‐ making
process,
 
 ‐
Express
what
is
deep
down
in
 our
cultural
assumptions
in
a
way
 that
is
comprehensible
to
people
 unfamiliar
with
our
meaning‐ making
patterns,
and
 
 ‐
Navigate
the
turbulence
of
 cross‐cultural
dynamics
in
order


to
solidify
a
constructive
future
 together
with
cultural
others.
 
 By
observing,
reflecting,
processing,
 articulating
and
recognizing
our
 experiences
of
cross‐cultural
 interaction,
we
build
a
foundation
of
 courage
and
flexibility
that
enables
us
 to
co‐create
a
future
with
cultural
 others
based
on
interdependence
and
 commonalities,
rather
than
conflict
and
 differences.
 


Core
Identity
Formation
Definitions
 Differentiation:
The
process
of
distinguishing
what
belongs
to
oneself
 from
what
belongs
to
other
people
and
things.
 Integration:
Images
of
good
and
bad,
self
and
other
become
crystallized;
 awareness
of
the
self
becomes
more
coherent
and
encompasses
the
 notion
of
good
and
bad;
starts
around
3
years
of
age.
 Identification:
The
process
of
unconsciously
taking
the
images
and
 functions
of
significant
people,
such
as
heroes
and
caretakers,
and
 incorporating
them
into
his
or
her
own
sense
of
self.
 


The
Power
of
Storytelling



1976
Kingsmills
Massacre
from
Seamus

 1995
Noble
Lecture


One
night,
ten
workmen
were
stopped
by
a
militant
group
believed
to
be
 targeting
Catholics.
One
of
the
Protestants
‐
in
a
clear
indication
of
 group
solidarity
‐
reached
out
for
the
Catholic’s
hand,
attempting
to
 prevent
him
from
exposing
his
religious
identity
and
to
protect
him
 from
harm.
But
the
Protestant
was
too
late;
the
Catholic
man
stepped
 aside.
The
nine
Protestants
were
killed
by
what
was
actually
an
earlier
 form
of
the
IRA.
Heaney
utilized
this
story
to
illustrate
the
potential
to
 achieve
peace
within
the
reality
of
conflict
and
suffering:
“the
birth
of
a
 future
we
desire,
is
surely
in
the
contraction
which
that
terrified
 Catholic
felt
on
the
roadside
when
another
hand
gripped
his
hand
‐
not
 in
the
gunfire
that
followed,
so
absolute
and
so
desolate.”

 


"Promoting
Peace
through
Dialogue”
Amman
2008



XII.

Case
Study:
 Northern
Ireland


Presented
by
Dr.
Paul
Arthur,
Global
 Majority
International
Advisory
Board;
 Professor,
Peace
and
Conflict
Studies
 Program,
University
of
Ulster
 In
May
2007,
the
Northern
Ireland
 coalition
government
was
established
 in
Belfast
between
two
juxtaposed,
 historically
uncompromising
parties:
 The
Democratic
Unionist
Party
(DUP)
 and
Sinn
Fein
(SF).
The
seeming
 intractability
of
this
conflict
has
been
 well
documented.
"The
statistics
 suggest
a
state
of
pathology.
Among
 other
constraints
were
at
least
four
 failed
internal
political
initiatives
 between
1972
and
1985,
and
a
political
 culture
that
was
[oppressive],
 underdeveloped,
factionalized,
and
 demotic
‐
a
culture
that
did
not
 encourage
the
acquisition
of
 negotiation
skills."
 
 The
influence
of
Track
II,
academically
 driven
diplomacy
efforts,
such
as
 annual
problem
solving
workshops,
 third‐party
interventions,
and
dialogue
 sessions
from
January
1990
to
June
 2004
were
critical
for
Northern
Ireland
 groups
to
develop
leadership
and
 negotiating
capacity.
It
complemented
 and
enhanced
Track
I
interventions:


evidence
of
formal
 negotiations
 progress.
These
 efforts
 incrementally
 developed
the
conflict
resolution
 skills
of
the
secondary
leadership
 of
the
constitutional
parties
(UUP,
 SDLP,
DUP,
and
Alliance):
"The
 result
was
that
a
small
group
of
 politicians
became
versed
in
a
 process
of
shared
learning."
Track
 II
Diplomacy,
which
usually
 occurred
without
the
pressure
of
 media
scrutiny
resulted
in
the
 creation
of
the
Northern
Ireland
 Center
in
Europe
(NICE)
and
the
 increased
engagement
of
the
 European
Union
in
the
resolution
 process.
Track
II
negotiations
 served
as
a
low‐expectation,
non‐ confrontational
forum
for
skill‐ building
and
the
establishment
of
 direct
communication
for
 Northern
Ireland’s
parties
and
 factions.



 The
technique
of
storytelling
was
 also
utilized
to
build
trust,
 recognition
and
relationships
that
 acknowledged
group
needs,
 positions
and
interests.
The
 Northern
Ireland
factional
and
 political
leaders
benefited,
for
 example,
from
the
reflections
and
 experiences
of
other
leaders
from
 South
Africa,
El
Salvador,
 Nicaragua
and
Eastern
Europe
 through
the
seminar,
The
Project
 of
Justice
in
Times
of
Transition,
 held
in
Belfast
in
1995.
The
goal
of
 this
project
was
simple:
to
 highlight
through
personal
 storytelling
effective
measures
and
 turning
points
for
achieving
a
 resolution.
 


“Establishing
relations
of
reciprocity
and
recognition
is
at
the
heart
of
Track
II
 exercises
and
is
approached
through
an
analysis
of
the
particular
conflict.”
Dr.
Arthur


"Promoting
Peace
through
Dialogue”
Amman
2008



ubu
(being)



Characteristics
of
 Ubuntu:

 Questioning,
Flexible,
 Reasonable,
Embedded
in
 Morality
 ntu
(concrete
 form)


XIII.
Case
Study:



 South
Africa


Presented
by
Dr.
Paul
Arthur
and
 Boatamo
Mosupyoe,
Global
Majority
 International
Advisory
Board


Concepts
of
restorative
justice
for
 indigenous,
conquered
South
 Africans
include:

 


1)
Return
of
title
to
territory
and
 sovereignty
 2)
Inclusion
of
South
Africans
into
 constitutional
and
democratic
 processes

 3)
Reparation
and
restitution
 according
to
international
law
 4)
A
post‐colonial
constitution
 that
reflects
the
culture,
history
 and
dignity
of
all
South
Africans.

 
 The
process
of
transitional
justice
 in
South
Africa
remains
 incomplete.

For
example,
 constitutional
law
doesn’t
reflect
 traditional,
customary
laws.
It
is
 based
not
on
African
concepts
of
 justice
‐
such
as
ubuntu
‐
but
 Westminster
and
Roman
legal
 frameworks.
It
is
believed
that
 there
is
philosophical
and
material
 inconsistency
in
the
 concept
of
historical
 justice
between
the
 conquered
people
 and
their
political


representatives.

"In
the
 determination
to
achieve
victory
 over
apartheid,
the
 democratization
paradigm
lost
 sight
of
the
fact
that
the
land
 question
was
a
basic
issue
long,
 long
before
apartheid
was
born.
 Despite
this
oversight,
 democratization
won
the
day
and
 so
the
question
of
title
to
territory
 and
sovereignty
over
it
did
not
 become
an
integral
part
of
the
 ‘negotiations’
agenda."
(From
 course
reader,
Mogobe
B.
Ramose,
 Professor
of
Philosophy
at
the
 University
of
South
Africa,
 Pretoria).
The
end
of
occupation

 ideally
would
have
coincided
with
 the
return
of
communal
space
‐
the
 end
of
private,
colonial
seizure
of
 land
‐
to
the
South
African
people.


“Keep
Hope
Alive.”
Dr.
 Mosupyoe
 


"Promoting
Peace
through
Dialogue”
Amman
2008



His
Excellency
Salah
Al‐Deen
Al‐Basheer


In
2008
the
question
is
still
being
 asked:
Is
Non‐Violent
Conflict
 Resolution
(NVCR)
achievable
in
 Israel‐Palestine?

A
renewed
 determination
for
NVCR
will
require
a
 redefinition
of
“peace”
in
terms
of
 consciousness.

“Palestine
has
lost
 hope;
the
hope
that
takes
us
to���any
 place
has
been
lost,”
said
the
 Jordanian
MOFA.

Before
considering
 approaches
to
NVCR,
there
must
first
 be
a
mutual
recognition
of
suffering,
 from
both
Israelis
and
Palestinians,
 and
their
current
situations.

 
 It
is
in
the
best
interest
of
both
Israel
 and
Palestine
to
achieve
the
U.N.’s
 two‐state
solution
and
preserve
the
 identities
of
both
groups.

The
 alternative,
a
democratic
state
of
 either
Israel
or
Palestine,
would
be
 asymmetric
and
therefore
detrimental
 to
one
side.

[As
demographics
are
 muddled
and
statistics
difficult
to
 verify,
declaring
one
side
or
the
other
 to
be
the
majority
is
complicated.]


 
 His
Excellency
Atallah
Al
Khairy


Therefore,
it
is
imperative
that
Israel
 embark
on
practical
peace
initiatives
 with
the
neighboring
states
of
Egypt
 and
Jordan,
and
also
with
Palestine.

 “The
Palestinian
issue
is
the
core
 issue,
although
it
is
[limited
by
 geography].”

Palestinians
tend
to
 suffer
greater
losses
in
the
conflict,
yet
 their
losses
have
always
been
 compared
with
those
of
Israel,
which
 hinders
peaceful
dialogue.

Israel
has
 rejected
all
the
UN
resolutions,


including
a
two‐state
solution,
and
has
 always
been
keen
on
allowing
Israelis
 to
settle
on
Palestinian
land.

A
lasting
 peace
between
Israel
and
Palestine
is
 possible
if
Israel
agrees
to
a
peace
 treaty
stipulating
the
conditions
of
a
 two‐state
solution.
 
 Honorable
Jeannette
Ndhlovu


This
year
we
celebrate
the
60th
year
of
 the
Universal
Declaration
of
Human
 Rights,
but
it
is
unfortunate
to
observe
 the
current
situation
in
Israel‐ Palestine.

Today,
rule
of
law
has
been
 given
front
coverage
by
the
 international
media
because
of
the
 involvement
of
the
International
 Criminal
Court
(ICC)
in
global
 conflicts.

This
is
not
done
in
spirit
of
 revenge,
but
in
the
spirit
of
 rectification
for
victims
of
injustice.

 
 Similarly,
the
Truth
and
Reconciliation
 Committee
(TRC)
of
South
Africa
 aimed
to
give
accurate
depiction
of
the
 impact
of
apartheid
before
granting
 amnesty
to
perpetrators.

The
TRC
was
 divided
into
three
committees
–
 Human
Rights
Violations,
Reparation
 and
Rehabilitation,
and
Amnesty
–
 providing
platforms
for
all
people
to
be
 heard
and
efficiency
so
the
nation
of
 South
Africa
could
move
forward.

 Using
this
model,
we
were
able
to
 bring
together
people
of
Argentina,
 Chile,
Costa
Rica,
and
Northern
 Ireland.

The
idea
was
to
enhance
the
 truth
and
reconciliation
process
in
 these
respective
countries.

This
act
of
 international
solidarity
brought
people
 together
to
speak
in
one
voice,
and
to
 encourage
others
to
 explore
a
peaceful
end
 to
conflict.


 
 South
Africa
supports
 the
roadmap
to
peace
 in
the
Middle
East
via
 a
two‐state
solution.

 Indeed,
the
Palestinian
 people
need
a
 homeland.

Israelis
and
 Palestinians
can
 coexist,
but
the
 international
 community
must


XIV.
Opening
Keynote
 Address



 Panelists:
 His
Excellency
Salah
Al‐Deen
Al‐ Basheer,
Minister
of
Foreign
Affairs
 of
Jordan
 His
Excellency
Atallah
Al
Khairy,
 Palestinian
Ambassador
in
Jordan

 Honorable
Consul
General
Jeannette
 Ndhlovu
of
South
Africa
 Moderated
by
Jairam
Reddy,
Global
 Majority
International
Advisory
 Board
 
 provide
more
guidance
in
the
 
 establishment
of
a
two‐state
solution,
 just
as
it
helped
bring
justice
to
South
 Africa.

As
we
observe
the
Universal
 Declaration
of
Human
Rights’
60th
 anniversary,
civil
society
must
take
 upon
itself
the
task
of
peaceful
 resolution
to
conflicts.

 
 Q:
We
are
frustrated
that
the
government
of
 Israel
has
not
responded
while
Egypt
and
 Jordan
initiated
the
peace
process.

How
does
 the
Jordanian
government
view
this
issue?


A:

The
Israeli
government
needs
to
 look
positively
to
the
process
and
look
 at
the
initiative
as
opportunity.

The
 lack
of
response
by
Israel
to
the
 initiative
shows
that
it
is
not
yet
ready
 to
become
that
type
of
leadership
 territory.

Jordan
envisions
Israel
 becoming
a
partner
in
the
region,
to
be
 rid
of
the
sense
of
isolation.

This
is
the
 opportunity
that
Israel
has
been
 missing
and
where
Jordan
has
failed
to
 succeed.
 Q:

I
believe
in
a
one‐state
solution
because
 the
two‐state
solution
is
not
fair
for
the
 Palestinian
people.

How
do
you
overcome
the
 inside
security,
hatred,
and
conflicts
between
 individuals?


A:

I
am
not
advocating
for
one
state
 solution.

These
dreams
can
happen.

 The
two‐state
solution
is
viable
with
 the
1967
Israel
border.
That
is
what
is
 on
the
negotiation
table
and
that
is
 what
is
possible.
 
 


"Promoting
Peace
through
Dialogue”
Amman
2008



Q:
Hamas
and
Fatah
are
arresting
and
 torturing
each
other
in
their
territories.

Is
 reconciliation
between
Hamas
and
Fatah
 possible?


This
conflict
involves
senior
 leadership
of
Hamas
and
Fatah.

Both
 sides
must
work
together
to
move
on
 with
the
peace
process.





 XV.
Prospects
for
Peace:


Possibilities
and
Challenges



 Panelists:
 Hassan
Barari
(Jordan)
 Barak
Ben‐Zur
(Israel)
 Moshe
Maoz
(Israel)
 Ziad
Abu‐Zayyad
(Palestine)
 Moderator:
Rita
Cameron
Wedding
 (USA,
Global
Majority
International
 Advisory
Board)


Hassan
Barari


Before
discussing
the
prospects
for
 peace,
there
must
be
recognition
of
the
 impediments
to
peace.

Briefly
 speaking,
Palestinian
division
has
not
 helped
the
Palestinians;
rather,
these
 divisions
have
emasculated
Palestinian
 cohesion.

Secondly,
it
is
impossible
to
 think
of
an
Israeli
alliance
at
the
 present
time
because
the
nature
of
the
 Israeli
government
is
based
on
a
 coalition.

The
power
dynamic
in
Israel
 is
difficult
to
understand
and
this
 complicates
the
peace
process.

Thirdly,
 the
current
U.S.
administration
has
 negatively
affected
the
peace
process,
 providing
additional
problems
rather
 than
solutions.

Lastly,
without
a
two‐ state
solution,
there
will
be
a
 continuation
of
the
status
quo:
the
land
 grab,
the
wall,
settlements,
etc.

 Allowing
the
status
quo
to
remain
is
a
 major
barrier
to
the
peace
process.
 
 With
these
factors
in
mind,
Palestinians
 can
begin
to
realize
their
dream
by
 reaching
a
consensus.
They
must
agree
 on
the
terms
of
peace
and,
working
 together,
push
forward
towards
a
 common
goal
for
the
peace
process,


instead
of
preventing
each
other
from
 attaining
their
goals.

 
 Moshe
Maoz


I
will
start
by
stating
the
obvious:
 settling
the
Israel‐Palestine
conflict
is
 in
the
best
interests
of
both
groups,
 as
well
as
of
the
international
 community.

Both
sides
have
a
right
 Recommendations
for
a
Peace
Treaty
 Lesson
1:


 Put
your
hand
in
the
policy
(i.e.

make
peace
 an
interest
of
the
Americans;
they
need
to
be
 involved
with
the
peace
process
‐
IT
DOES
 affect
them.)

The
American
role
is
more
 important
than
it
used
to
be.

President
Bush
 adopted
a
hands‐off
policy
and
this
will
not
 work.
The
Israelis
trust
the
Americans
and
 need
their
help
in
this
process.

Europeans
 don’t
think
they
have
the
strength
to
interfere
 with
the
peace
process
SO
the
Americans
need
 to
re‐engage.
 Lesson
2:


 The
Middle
East
policy
should
be
seen
as
an
 American
policy.
The
next
American
 administration
needs
to
make
policies
 regarding
the
Middle
East
a
priority,
and
it
 needs
to
make
itself
more
visible.

 Lesson
3:


 Any
peace
process
that
lacks
presidential
 endorsement
is
not
serious.
People
here
think:
 “Where
is
the
president
of
the
United
States?”

 People
admire
American
presidents
that
show
 their
faces.

An
indirect
role
in
the
peace
 process
is
not
acceptable
to
the
Middle
Eastern
 people.
 Lesson
4:


 Explore
all
channels
and
explore
all
 possibilities
of
peacemaking.
 Lesson
5:


 The
peace
process
must
begin
and
the
conflict
 must
be
resolved.

The
step‐by‐step
process
 has
not
worked.

We
need
to
change
things
 here
‐
and
NOW.

No
more
gradual
solutions.

 This
does
not
work.

You
cannot
create
a
peace
 process
without
directly
engaging
in
it
(being
 in
the
region).

The
U.S.
needs
to
expand
its
 diplomatic
approach
to
the
Middle
East.

The
 use
of
the
military
is
not
working.
 Lesson
6:


 Time
is
a
factor.


Now
is
the
time
for
action.
 Procrastinating
or
putting
it
aside
until
later
is
 not
good
enough.
 Lesson
7:


 All
players
must
keep
to
their
word.


to
self‐determination,
and
both
sides
 want
violence
to
cease.

This
could
 be
achieved
with
a
two‐state
solution
 and
the
integration
of
the
Muslim
 world
in
the
peace
process.

By
 integrating
the
voices
of
Jews
and
 Arabs,
a
two‐state
solution
has
the
 potential
to
stop
attacks
perpetrated
 by
Hezbollah
against
Israel.
 
 For
this
and
other
reasons,
it
is
in
the
 interest
of
Israel
to
have
a
two‐state
 solution.

The
Jews
will
not
give
up
 Israel,
but
a
single
state
will
result
in
 apartheid
and
more
violence.

Israelis
 and
Palestinians
share
the
same
 language,
they
share
a
connection
to
 the
Old
City
of
Jerusalem,
and
they
 share
the
same
God.

So
why
does
 this
situation
still
exist?

It
must
be
 changed.

“There
are
so
many
 blueprints
of
a
two‐state
solutions,
 and
I
am
tired
of
seeing
them.”

All
 blueprints
aside,
these
factors
must
 be
taken
into
account:
 
 Jerusalem
must
remain
unified,
 rather
than
divided.

Although
Israel
 is
opposed
to
having
Palestinians
in
 Jerusalem,
Israelis
must
understand
 that
without
Jerusalem
there
will
be
 no
solution.
 
 Regarding
the
refugee
issue,
 Mahmoud
Abbas
doesn’t
envision
 the
return
of
all
refugees.

He
is
 discussing
compensation
and
 resolution
within
the
Palestinian
 state.

 
 Extremism
prevents
the
peace
 process.

However,
it
is
important
to
 include
extremist
views,
as
their
 consent
is
necessary
to
a
peace
 agreement.

Pressure
and
dialogue
 are
necessary:
“I
think
Obama
will
do
 this.

He
wants
to
talk.”

Also,
Jewish
 and
Muslim
religious
leaders
are
 needed
to
moderate.
 Once
a
two‐state
solution
is
 implemented,
consideration
for
 Israel,
Palestine,
and
Jordan
must
be
 given
regarding
land
and
water
 scarcity.
 


"Promoting
Peace
through
Dialogue”
Amman
2008



Ziad
Abu‐Zayyad


Indeed,
there
are
many
blueprints
for
 a
path
to
peace.

Why
haven’t
any
of
 them
been
achieved?

There
is
 pressure
on
the
Palestinian
authority
 to
surrender.

Israel
has
no
political
 will
to
reach
a
solution.

The
Israel‐ Palestine
conflict
has
become
a
 regional
conflict.

American
policies
 have
greatly
complicated
the
 situation,
intertwining
all
conflicts
in
 the
Middle
East.

“There
is
no
going
 back
to
where
we
were
before
Bush.”
 
 Settlements
continue
to
expand,
so
 where
are
Palestinians
supposed
to
 establish
their
state?

A
two‐state
 solution
seems
impossible
because
the
 official
policy
of
Israel
disregards
 Palestinian
rights.

Right‐wing
Israelis
 put
all
of
their
energy
into
the
 expansion
of
the
Israeli
state.

Israeli
 settlements
on
Palestinian
land
are
 illegal
and
a
violation
of
the
4th
 Geneva
Convention
–
these
 settlements
must
be
evacuated.
 
 The
withdrawal
from
Gaza
should
 have
been
better
coordinated
with
the
 Palestinians.


Victor
Cygielman,
 founder
of
the
Palestine‐Israel
 Journal,
argues
that
Arial
Sharon
did
 not
want
to
see
any
moderates
leading
 Gaza,
which
is
why
Sharon
left
Gaza
 in
the
hands
of
Hamas,
rather
than
 the
Palestinian
Authority.

Calling
 Gaza
a
breeding
ground
for
extremists
 gave
Sharon
the
justification
to
 continually
strike
against
Palestinians.

 Israel
has
become
a
hostage
to
its
own
 policies,
and
to
halt
their
actions
now
 would
be
difficult.



 Jerusalem
is
a
holy
city,
and
 we
respect
the
Jewish
 attachment
to
it.

However,
 Harem
al
Sharif
is
ours.

And
 take
for
example
the
road
 blocks:
there
are
over
550
that
 were
made
during
the
2nd
 intifada.

Now
roadblocks
and
 checkpoints
are
unnecessary,
 but
none
have
been
removed.
 The
government
listens
to
the
 settlers
when
they
express
 that
checkpoint
removal
will
threaten
 their
security,
so
the
roadblocks
and
 checkpoints
remain.
Even
army
 generals
concluded
that
checkpoints
 are
unnecessary
for
Israeli
security,
yet
 none
of
them
have
been
removed.

As
 communism
failed
and
disappeared,
so
 will
Israel.

They
are
digging
their
own
 graves
with
ideology.

Israelis
needs
to
 recognize
the
right
of
the
Palestinians
 to
have
their
own
state.

If
they
do
not,
 everyone
will
lose.
 


developed
leadership
of
the
Gaza
 strip.
Bringing
rockets
from
Egypt
is
 not
useful
to
the
development
of
 peace.

There
should
be
one
major
 International
 force
in
Palestinian
society
to
bring
 Conference
 their
wishes
and
dreams
to
reality.
 A
(Abu‐Zayyad):
The
Knesset
says
to
 throw
the
Palestinians
out.
When
we
 formed
the
government
of
national
 unity,
we
accepted
all
of
their
 provisions,
but
they
said
that
they
 wanted
Hamas
to
accept
it
as
well.

 We
tried
to
form
a
democracy;
why
 can’t
we
enjoy
the
opportunities
that
 the
other
side
has?


Q:
We
as
Palestinians
have
to
deal
with
 internal
conflicts
in
order
to
deal
with
the
 conflict.

What
is
going
on
in
Palestine
that
 has
resulted
in
this
situation?

If
we
do
not
 have
consensus
it
is
because
of
the
world’s
 injustice.


A
(Barari):

Thank
you
and
I
think
we
 are
in
agreement
about
the
elections.

 Unfortunately,
the
first
three
months
 of
the
Hamas
government
did
not
pay
 salaries,
and
they
have
not
wanted
to
 play
by
the
rules.
They
do
not
 understand
the
need
to
deal
with
the
 international
community.
I
supported
 the
international
community
from
 the
beginning.
Once
a
government
 cannot
run
their
business,
they
 should
resign.
 
 A
(Abu‐Zayyad):
They
have
not
been

 given
a
chance
to
function!
 


A
(Barari):
The
lack
of
common
 strategy
is
a
cause
of
the
conflict
 within
Palestine.

There
is
 disagreement
between
Fatah
and
 Hamas.

There
is
no
peace
without
 agreement
between
the
two
sides
 about
how
to
achieve
peace.


 
 A
(Ben‐Zur):
When
we
are
speaking
 about
unity,
we
are
speaking
about
 one
weapon
and
one
nation—but
this
 is
not
the
reality.

October
2003
the
 commander
of
special
forces
in
Gaza
 was
assassinated
in
the
street
by
 Hamas.

The
Fatah
leader
gathered
 followers
to
take
revenge
and
the
 Hamas
situation
was
stopped.
You
 cannot
have
more
than
one
major
 force
that
is
leading
the
wish
of
the
 Palestinian
people.
If
you
have
an
 agreement
with
the
Israelis,
then
there
 needs
to
be
one
joined
voice.

I’m
not
 sure
that
the
Gaza
withdrawal
was
a
 mistake,
but
it
is
a
chance
to
move
on.

 There
is
no
benefit
of
how
Hamas
has


Q:
Thank
you
Dr.
Moshe
for
what
you
said,
 especially
since
it
was
made
by
an
Israeli.

 Dr.
Hassan,
that
a
Palestinian
faction
has
 failed
is
true
but
we
also
have
to
look
at
the
 general
perspective.

Everyone
wanted
the
 Palestinians
to
have
elections
and
it
was
 done‐‐
Hamas
won
these
elections.
I
want
 to
reprimand
the
community
for
not
 accepting
the
results
of
these
democratic
 elections.
The
international
community
 needs
to
accept
these
results
and
accept
 Hamas.
Why
did
everyone
want
to
deal
with
 the
result
and
not
the
reason
of
the
victory
 of
Hamas?



"Promoting
Peace
through
Dialogue”
Amman
2008



AMMAN
DECLARATION
 OF
 GLOBAL
MAJORITY


International
 Conference


3
August
2008
 
 As
members
of
Global
Majority’s
International
Advisory
Board
and
Board
of
Directors,
we
issue
the
following
 Amman
Declaration
on
the
occasion
of
the
“Promoting
Peace
through
Dialogue”
International
Conference
convened
 in
Amman,
Jordan
1‐3
August
2008.

 We
gather
at
a
time
of
change
in
the
Middle
East
and
the
world.
Our
movement
now
includes
representatives
from
 over
30
countries
who
are
committed
to
the
promotion
of
education,
training,
and
advocacy
in
the
field
of
non‐ violent
conflict
resolution;

 Conflict
continues
to
divide
the
region
and
the
world.
Active
wars
rage
in
Iraq,
Afghanistan
and
Sudan
while
the
 violence
of
continued
Israeli‐Palestinian
conflict
includes
both
explicit
acts
of
violence
and
the
more
insidious
 impacts
of
protracted
conflict
resulting
from
the
occupation
of
the
West
Bank
and
Gaza.

 We
are
encouraged
by
recent
reported
dialogue
involving
Israel,
Palestine,
Syria,
Hamas
and
Hezbollah
as
facilitated
 by
Egypt
and
Turkey
among
others.

We
believe
that
political
leaders
in
the
region
bear
the
moral
imperative
to
 achieve
meaningful
and
constructive
frameworks
and
agreements
that
will
fulfill
the
aspirations
of
the
majority
of
 people
in
the
region
and
in
the
world
to
live
in
peace;

 
We
appeal
to
the
leaders
of
Israel,
Palestine,
Jordan,
Syria,
Lebanon,
Egypt,
Iraq,
Iran,
Afghanistan,
Sudan,
the
 United
States,
Russia
and
the
EU
to
commit
to
the
process
of
principled
and
structured
dialogue
in
the
form
of
 regional
meetings
and

bilateral
&
multilateral
negotiations
to
achieve
the
following:

 
 








1.
An
immediate
ceasefire
and
a
commitment
to
formal
negotiations
to
end
the
violence;
 








2.
An
end
to
the
Israeli
occupation
of
the
Palestinian
territories
resulting
in
a
viable
two
state
solution
 based
on
the
1967
borders
with
the
possibility
of
equal
land
swaps
and
with
Jerusalem
as
the
capital
city
of
 both
Israel
and
Palestine;
 








3.
Commitment
to
a
regional
conference
or
bilateral
and
multilateral
negotiations
predicated
on
the
 basic
principles
of
international
law
and
respect
for
human
rights;
and,
 








4.
Implementation,
facilitation,
and
monitoring
of
appropriate
transitions
to
peace
that
will
prioritize
 the
protection
of
human
life,
property,
and
the
environment.
 
 
As
members
of
the
global
majority
and
civil
society
who
aspire
to
live
in
peace
and
convert
the
resources
devoted
to
 occupation
and
war
to
investment
in
human
welfare
including
education,
healthcare,
and
protection
of
the
earth’s
 environment,
we
implore
state
and
non
state
actors
to
demonstrate
the
diplomatic
skills
and
moral
commitment
 necessary
to
succeed
in
structured
dialogues
that
can
lead
to
peace
and
prosperity.

 We
call
on
our
partners
in
civil
society
organizations
throughout
the
region
and
the
world
to
build
new
networks
of
 coordination
and
advocacy
to
advance
the
above‐articulated
goals
and
call
on
the
international
media
in
all
its
 formations
to
carry
the
voice
of
the
voiceless
to
demand
responses
and
action
from
state
on
state
leaders
who
 possess
the
authority
to
transform
the
battlefields
of
war
and
violence
by
adopting
a
new
manner
of
thinking
that
 will
allow
humankind
to
thrive.


"Promoting
Peace
through
Dialogue”
Amman
2008



International
Seminar
and
Conference
Agenda
 


“Promoting
Peace
through
Dialogue”


A
Training
Seminar
in
Negotiation,
Mediation,
and
Conflict
Resolution
 and
International
Conference
 20
July
–
3
August
2008
 UNU‐ILI,
Amman,
Jordan
 Nonviolent
approaches
as
espoused
by
Mahathma
Gandhi
and
Martin
 Luther
King
have
been
powerful
forces
in
resolving
conflicts
and
 effecting
peaceful
change
and
reconciliation.
Yet
this
seems
to
have
 lost
momentum
in
the
latter
part
of
the
20th
century
and
at
the
 beginning
of
this
century.
Instead
we
see
a
world
of
intolerance
with
 little
respect
for
diversity,
complexity
and
nuance,
but
rather,
a
 readiness
to
resort
to
violence
as
a
means
of
resolving
conflicts.
The
 resolution
of
conflicts
through
nonviolent
processes
and
subsequent
 peace
building
remains
one
of
the
foremost
challenges
of
the
21st
 century.
Perhaps
the
most
challenging
is
the
Israeli–Palestinian
 conflict
that
many
observers
believe
lies
at
the
heart
of
the
instability
 in
the
Middle
East
and
beyond.
Its
complexity,
characterized
by
severe
 divisions
within
the
two
countries,
lack
of
resolve
among
the
 international
community,
exacerbated
by
religious
zealotry,
the
case
of
 refugees
and
the
sacred
historical
status
of
Jerusalem.
Yet
there
is
 enormous
goodwill
among
both
Israeli
and
Palestinian
people
for
a
 resolution
of
the
conflict
by
compromise
and
by
peaceful
means.
 
 The
United
Nations
University
‐
International
Leadership
Institute,
 Global
Majority
and
the
Friedrich
Naumann
Foundation
are
jointly
 sponsoring
this
conference
on
leadership,
conflict
resolution,
 negotiation,
mediation
and
peace
building
with
a
particular
focus
on
 the
long‐standing
Israel‐Palestine
conflict.
Local
and
international
 speakers
will
explore
the
core
issues
of
the
conflict
with
participants
 that
will
include
young
leaders
from
Jordan,
the
Middle
East,
Palestine,
 Israel
and
many
other
nations.
 


Seminar



 SUNDAY
JULY
20,
2008
 




















 Welcome
and
Staff
Introductions
 Introductions
of
Participants
 Conflict,
Resolution
and
Justice
in
International
Relations
Theory
 
 MONDAY
JULY
21,
2008
 




















 Introduction
to
Interest­based
Negotiations
 Simulation:
Bilateral
Negotiations
 Israel/Palestine
Conflict:
Arab
Perspective
 Israel/Palestine
Conflict:
Israeli
Perspective
 
 TUESDAY
JULY
22,
2008
 




















 Cooperative
Advocacy
in
Conflict
Resolution
 Introduction
to
Mediation
 Simulation:
Multilateral
Humanitarian
Mediation
 
 WEDNESDAY
JULY
23,
2008
 




















 Examining
Implicit
Bias
in
the
Context
of
Negotiation/Mediation
 Asymmetric
Conflict
 Simulation:
Multi­lateral
Negotiation/Mediation
 Introduction
and
Group
Assignments
 
 THURSDAY
JULY
24,
2008
 




















 Simulation:
Multi­lateral
Negotiation/Mediation


Simulation:
Press
Conference
and
Groups
Debrief




 **Hand
Out
Mid­term
Exam:
Due
on
Sunday,
July
27**
 
 SUNDAY
JULY
27,
2008
 




















 Mid­term
Exam
Due
and
Weekly
Recap
 Gender
Aspects
in
Conflict
Resolution
 Women
and
Conflict
Resolution
in
the
Middle
East
 
 MONDAY
JULY
28,
2008
 



















 Track
I
and
II
Diplomacy
 Conflict
Resolution
Across
Cultures
 
 
TUESDAY
JULY
29,
2008
 




















 Case
Study:
Northern
Ireland
 Case
Study:
South
Africa
 Case
Studies
Discussion
 Site
Visits:
Introduction
and
Preparation
 
















 WEDNESDAY
JULY
30,
2008
 
 Site
Visits
Orientation:
 Site
Visits
 Reflections
on
Site
Visits
and
Preparation
for
tomorrow
 Documentary
Film
Showing,
“Encounter
Point”
 
 THURSDAY
JULY
31,
2008
 




















 Focus
Groups
by
Destination:
Reflection
and
Discussion
of
Site
Visits
 Focus
Groups
at
Plenary
Session
 Participant
Platform
for
Discussion
and
Policy
Recommendations
 
 
 


Conference



 FRIDAY
AUGUST
1,
2008
 
 Welcoming
Remarks:
 Jairam
Reddy,
UNU­ILI
 Bill
Monning,
Global
Majority
 Anemie
De
Winter,
Frederich
Naumann
Foundation
 
 Musical
Dance
Performance
by
UNRWA
Girls’
School
 19:30
Dinner
and
Reception
at
UNU­ILI
 
 SATURDAY
AUGUST
2,
2008
 
 Opening
Keynote
Addresses
 Moderated
by
Jairam
Reddy
 His
Excellency
Salah
Al­Deen
Al­Basheer,
Minister
of
Foreign
Affairs
of
 Jordan
 His
Excellency
Atallah
Al
Khairy,
Palestinian
Ambassador
in
Jordan
 Honorable
Consul
General
Jeannette
Ndhlovu
of
South
Africa
 
 PANEL:
Prospects
for
Peace:
Possibilities
and
Challenges
 Hassan
Barari
(Jordan)


"Promoting
Peace
through
Dialogue”
Amman
2008



Barak
Ben­
Zur
(Israel)
 Moshe
Maoz
(Israel)
 Ziad
Abu­Zayyad
(Palestine)
 Moderator:
Rita
Cameron
Wedding
(USA)
 
 PANEL:
Conflicts
in
the
Region:
Current
Dynamics
and
Future
Scenarios
 Panelists:
 Albaqir
Mukhtar
(Sudan­
Darfur)
 Faten
Ghosn
(Lebanon)
 Ahmad
Jamil
(Iraq)
 Moderator:
Lejla
Mavris
(Bosnia­Herzegovina)
 
 Working
Groups
with
Tea
/
Coffee
 
 1st
Plenary
Discussion
 
 SUNDAY
AUGUST
3,
2008
 
 PANEL:
Reporting
from
Jordan
on
the
Arab­Israeli
Conflict
 Jamil
Nimri
(Jordan)
 Mohammad
Abu
Rumman
(Jordan)
 Moderator:
Ibtesam
Al­Atiyat
(Jordan)
 
 PANEL:
Role
of
Media
in
Conflict
Resolution
 Hillel
Schenker
(Israel)
 Daoud
Kuttab
(Palestine)
 Moderator:
Nada
Alkaraki
(Jordan)
 
 PANEL:
Role
of
Civil
Society
in
Promotion
of
Nonviolent
Conflict
 Resolution
in
Israel
and
Palestine
 Boatamo
Mosupyoe
(South
Africa)
 Paul
Arthur
(Northern
Ireland)
 Tatsushi
Arai
(Japan)
 Bill
Monning
(USA)
 Moderator:
Cameron
Hunter
(USA)
 
 Working
Groups
with
Tea
/
Coffee
 
 Plenary
Discussion
 
 Press
Conference
and
Closing
of
the
Conference
 
 Certificate
Award
Ceremony
for
the
Students
 
 


Additional
Resources



 Seminar
Recommended
Readings:
 1.
Lederach,
John
Paul,
Defining
Conflict
Transformation
at
 http://www.peaceworkmagazine.org/node/238
 2.
Woodhouse,
Tom,
International
Conflict
Resolution:
Some
Critiques
 and
a
Response
at
 http://www.brad.ac.uk/acad/confres/assets/CCR1.pdf
 3.
UN
Declaration
of
Principles
on
Tolerance
­
 www.unesco.org/cpp/uk/declarations/tolerance.pdf
 4.
Arthur,
Paul,
Peer
Learning:
Northern
Ireland
as
a
Case
Study
at
 http://www.wilsoncenter.org/subsites/ccpdc/pubs/art/4.htm
 5.
Pankhurst,
Donna,
Women,
Gender
and
Peacebuilding
at
 http://www.brad.ac.uk/acad/confres/papers/pdfs/CCR5.pdf
 6.
Sharoni,
Simona
Gender
and
the
Israeli­Palestinian
Conflict:
The
 Politics
of
Women's
 Resistance,
1995
Syracuse
Univ.
Pr.,
Syracuse,
NY
 7.
Gender,
Conflict,
and
Development
at
http://wwwwds.
 worldbank.org/servlet/WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/2004/11/15/000 090341_20041115
 142901/Rendered/PDF/30494.pdf
 8.
Kardam,
Nuket
and
Yannis
Toussulis,
Islam
and
Tolerance
in
Wider
 Europe,
p
110­119
at
 www.policy.hu/ipf/policypersp/D11­NKYT­Women’sRights.pdf
 9.
Galtung,
Johan,
Transcend
and
Transform:
An
Intro.
to
Conflict
Work


10.
Shlaim,
Avi,
The
Iron
Wall
 
 Negotiation
and
Mediation
Resources:
 1.
Fisher,
Roger,
and
William
Ury.
Getting
to
Yes:
Negotiating
Agreement
 without
Giving,
2nd
 ed.
New
York:
Penguin
Books.
1991.
ISBN:
0­14­015735­2
 2.
Negotiation
Strategies
by
Heidi
Burgess
available
on
line
at:
 http://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/negotiation_strategies/
 Please
follow
the
hyperlinks
within
the
text
that
will
allow
you
to
peruse
 through
other
negotiation
related
articles.
 3.
Mediation
Strategies
and
Techniques
 http://www.beyondintractability.org/action/essays.jsp?nid=2195
 4.
Islamic
Mediation
Techniques
for
Middle
East
Conflicts
 http://meria.idc.ac.il/journal/1999/issue2/jv3n2a1.html
 
 Middle
East
Books
and
Articles:
 1.
Cleveland,
William
L.,
A
History
of
the
Modern
Middle
East,
3rd.
ed.
 Cambridge,
MA:
 Westview
Press.
2004.
ISBN:
0­8133­4048­9
 2.
Shipler,
David
K.,
Arab
and
Jew:
Wounded
Spirits
in
a
Promised
Land
 3.
Said,
Edward,
From
Oslo
to
Iraq
and
the
Road
Map
 4.
Tessler,
Mark,
A
History
of
the
Israeli­Palestinian
Conflict
 5.
Global
Majority’s
International
Advisory
Board
member
Hillel
 Schenker
(Israel)
articles
on
 The
Guardian
blogs:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/hillelschenker
 6.
Give
the
Arab
Peace
Initiative
a
Chance,
Fuad
Siniora
–
Lebanese
 Prime
Minister
 http://www.khaleejtimes.com/DisplayArticleNew.asp?xfile=data/opinio n/2007/May/opinion_
 May42.xml&section=opinion&col
 7.
Moving
Beyond:
Interreligious
Dialogue
in
Lebanon,
Hala
Fleihan
 http://www.beyondintractability.org/case_studies/interfaith_dialogue.j sp?nid=5302
 8.
The
Crisis
in
Interfaith
Relations
in
the
Middle
East
 www.usip.org/pubs/usipeace_briefings/2007/0307_crisis_interfaith.htm l
 9.
Defusing
the
Iranian
Nuclear
Crisis:
A
Carrot
and
Stick
Approach.
By
 Jean
du
Preez,
 February
17,
2006.
http://www.cns.miis.edu/pubs/week/060220.htm.
 Research
Centers
Focusing
on
Conflict
Resolution
and
the
Middle
East:
 
 Research
Centers
on
Conflict
Resolution
in
the
Middle
East:
 1.
Palestine­Israel
Journal
(Related
with
Global
Majority’s
International
 Advisory
Board
member
Hillel
Schenker
­
Israel),
in
Jerusalem
–
 www.pij.org
 2.
Al
Mezan
Center
for
Human
Rights
(Related
with
Global
Majority’s
 International
Advisory
 Board
member
Ramiz
Younis
­
Palestine)
in
Gaza
–
 http://www.mezan.org
 3.
Transcend
–
A
Peace
and
Development
Network
­
www.transcend.org
 4.
B’Tselem:
The
Israeli
Information
Center
for
Human
Rights
in
the
 Occupied
Territories
–
 www.btselem.org
 5.
Israel
Palestine
Center
for
Research
and
Information
(IPCRI)
–
 www.ipcri.org
 6.
Middle
East
Policy
Council
–
http://www.mepc.org/
 7.
The
Washington
Institute
for
Near
East
Policy
–
 www.washingtoninstitute.org
 8.
The
Middle
East
Media
Research
Institute
(pro
Israel)
–
 www.memri.org
 9.
Center
for
Strategic
Research
(Iran)
–
http://www.csr.ir/English.asp
 10.
Arab
Institute
for
Research
and
Strategic
Studies
(Jordan)
–
 http://airss.net/index.asp
 11.
The
Jaffee
Center
for
Strategic
Studies
(Israel)
–
 http://www.tau.ac.il/jcss/
 12.
The
Begin­Sadat
Center
for
Strategic
Studies
(Israel)
–
 http://www.biu.ac.il/SOC/besa/
 13.
Institute
for
Peace
and
Conflict
Studies
(Pakistan)
–
 http://www.ipcs.org/Pakistan.jsp
 14.
Center
for
Political
and
Strategic
Studies
(Egypt)
–
 http://www.ahram.org.eg/acpss/eng/ahram/2004/7/5/Abot0.htm


"Promoting
Peace
through
Dialogue”
Amman
2008



GLOBAL
MAJORITY
AND
UNITED
NATIONS
 UNIVERSITY,
 LEADERSHIP
TRAINING
INSTITUTE
 Amman,
Jordan
 July
2008
 


MULTI‐LATERAL
 NEGOTIATION/MEDIATION
 SIMULATION
 
 UNITED
NATIONS
WORKING
GROUP
 ON
MIDDLE
EAST
REGION
 ©
 Prof.
William
W.
Monning,
J.D.
 Cameron
Hunter,
MA
 Nicholas
Tomb,
MA
 Austin
Stockwell
 
 _________________________________________________
 


COMMON
INSTRUCTIONS
 Background
 This
multilateral
negotiation/mediation
simulation
is
designed
to
provide
 students
 with
 an
 opportunity
 to
 practice
 negotiation,
 mediation,
 and
 diplomatic
 skills
 with
 a
 real
 time,
 current
 historical
 context
 focusing
 on
 Middle
East
regional
issues.
 The
 authors
 recognize
 the
 delicacy
 and
 complexity
 of
 many
 of
 the
 issues
 facing
 the
 region
 that
 also
 face
 individual
 participants
 in
 this
 training
 session.
 There
 is
 no
 pre‐determined
 outcome
 to
 this
 simulation.
 
 
 The
 simulation
 is
 designed
 to
 allow
 participants
 to
 learn
 from
 each
 other,
 formulate
 potential
 options
 and
 solutions,
 and
 to
 learn
 how
 a
 real
 world
 United
Nations
(UN)
or
other
regional
working
group
might
endeavor
to
 approach
current
challenges
in
a
principled
and
constructive
manner.



 Additionally,
 each
 working
 group
 will
 include
 two
 (2)
 United
 Nations
 representatives
 who
 are
 considered
 to
 be
 neutral
 and
 who
 have
 been
 selected
 based
 on
 their
 experience
 based
 upon
 prior
 consensus
 of
 all
 parties.

The
role
of
the
UN
representatives
will
be
to
serve
as
facilitators
 (managing
 the
 coordination
 of
 the
 sessions)
 and
 mediators
 who
 will
 be
 empowered
 to
 participate
 in
 the
 formulation
 of
 potential
 solutions
 through
 the
 formation
 of
 smaller,
 issue‐oriented
 sub‐working
 groups,
 caucus
 meetings,
 or
 other
 procedures
 determined
 to
 be
 useful
 in
 addressing
and
identifying
issues.
 (Note:

It
is
understood
that
within
virtually
all
of
these
countries/interest
 groups
 there
 are
 factions,
 competing
 interest
 groups,
 and
 in
 some
 cases
 civil
 conflict.
 
 The
 national/interest
 group
 representatives
 will
 represent
 the
 currently
 recognized
 government
 or
 representative
 of
 the
 country
 or
 interest
group.

Confidential
instructions
may
provide
further
clarification
 as
to
your
representative
capacity.)
 Assumptions
of
the
Simulation
 For
 purposes
 of
 this
 simulation,
 assume
 that
 ALL
 parties
 have
 agreed
 to
 the
identification
of
the
following
issues
for
consideration,
discussion,
and
 negotiation
during
the
duration
of
this
working
group:
 1. Border
security
 2. Refugees
 3. Nuclear
Weapons
 These
 are
 all
 broad/complex/controversial
 issues
 that
 take
 on
 different
 priority
 and
 dimension
 for
 each
 party.
 
 Party
 representatives
 and
 facilitators/mediators
 will
 work
 to
 further
 refine
 these
 broad
 issue
 categories
into
subsets
during
which
each
party
will
develop
and
articulate
 their
perspectives
and
recommendations
for
consideration
by
the
group
of
 the
whole.

 Ground
Rules
and
Procedures
 1. 2. 3.

Design
of
the
Simulation
 Students
will
be
assigned
to
represent
a
country
or
national
interest
group.
 Some
 students
 will
 be
 assigned
 to
 serve
 in
 the
 role
 of
 working
 group
 facilitator/mediator
 to
 guide
 the
 session
 and
 to
 work
 with
 all
 parties
 to
 formulate
interim
or
final
agreements
in
the
form
of
recommendations
to
 regional
member
states
and
United
Nations
members.
The
mandate
to
all
 parties
is
to
engage
in
good
faith
in
these
negotiations
in
an
effort
to
frame
 issues,
 generate
 options,
 and
 work
 toward
 the
 formulation
 of
 a
 final
 agreement
that
may
be
either
procedural
or
substantive
in
nature.




4. 5.

Countries/Interests
Groups/
Parties
Represented
 The
following
countries/interest
groups/parties
will
be
represented
in
the
 working
group
sessions:
 8
 Groups:
 Egypt;
 Iran,
 Iraq,
 Israel,
 Jordan,
 Lebanon,
 Palestine,
 Syria,
 United
States


6.

Representatives
 –
 Each
 country
 or
 interest
 group
 (party)
 will
 include
 1
 representative
 who
 may
 or
 may
 not
 be
 selected
based
on
their
actual
country/region
of
origin;
 Simulation
 “Universes”
 ‐
 There
 will
 be
 multiple
 universes
 that
 will
 work
 independent
 of
 each
 other.
 
 Each
 of
 these
 large
working
groups
will
be
an
autonomous
universe;
 Preparations
‐
Each
party
will
receive
a
set
of
confidential
 instructions
 which
 will
 include
 some
 further
 background
 information,
 instructions
 related
 to
 their
 negotiating
 authority,
 and
 further
 definition
 of
 who
 they
 represent.

 During
 the
 preparatory
 phase,
 teams
 from
 one
 universe
 may
meet
with
teams
from
the
other
universe
for
purposes
 of
research,
planning,
and
brainstorming.

After
the
official
 opening
 of
 each
 working
 group,
 there
 will
 be
 no
 more
 conferral
between
parties
in
separate
working
groups;
 Mediator/facilitator
preparation
‐
While
teams
prepare
for
 the
 opening
 session,
 facilitator/mediators
 will
 meet
 with
 instructors
for
further
guidance
and
preparation;
 UN
 Facilitator/Mediator
 Opening
 Statements
 ‐
 The
 opening
session
will
be
led
by
the
UN
mediator/facilitators
 who
will
make
an
opening
statement
setting
ground
rules
 for
 the
 working
 groups
 including
 guidelines
 for
 opening
 statements,
 agenda
 setting,
 how
 to
 be
 recognized
 for
 comments
and
proposals,
etc.;
 Party
 Opening
 Statements
 ‐
 Each
 country/interest
 group
 will
 make
 an
 opening
 statement
 in
 an
 order
 to
 be
 determined
 by
 the
 facilitators.
 
 The
 opening
 statement
 should
include:
 a. Self
 Introduction
 ‐
 Introduce
 negotiator
 by
 name
and
by
country/interest
group
identity;


"Promoting
Peace
through
Dialogue”
Amman
2008



b.

c.

d.

e.

f.

Offer
 Opening
 Recognition
 ‐
 Offer
 some
 opening
 recognition
 of
 the
 historic
 moment
 of
 the
 meeting
 and
 express
 aspirations
 for
 a
 productive
 and
 momentous
 achievement.

 Thank
 the
 United
 Nations
 facilitators
 and
 mediators
 for
 their
 role
 and
 acknowledge
 all
 parties
 present
 so
 long
 as
 such
 acknowledgement
 is
 in
 line
 with
 respective
 confidential
instructions;
 Offer
 Short
 Statement
 Describing
 Country/Interest
Group
‐
This
should
be
a
short
 explanation
 describing
 the
 country/interest
 group
 with
 some
 historical
 perspective,
 recognition
of
cultures,
religions,
achievements,
 and
challenges;
 Briefly
 describe
 broad
 interests
 for
 the
 issues
 identified
 for
 negotiation.
 
 This
 description
 can
 be
 general
 in
 scope
 or
 may
 include
 some
 very
 specific
information.

It
should
not
be
too
long,
 but
 should
 serve
 to
 “position”
 your
 interest
 group
with
relation
to
how
the
identified
issues
 affect
 your
 constituents’
 (citizens/residents)
 interests;
 Comment
 on
 Possible
 Broad
 Solutions
 and/or
 Affirm
 Commitment
 to
 Work
 Constructively
 Toward
Solution.

Use
the
opening
statement
to
 highlight
 broad
 aspirations
 and
 potentially
 any
 pre‐conditions
or
non‐negotiable
demands;
 Listen
 to
 counterparts’
 opening
 statements
 ‐
 It
 will
be
important
to
listen
carefully
to
all
parties’
 opening
 statements.
 
 This
 is
 the
 time
 to
 determine
 what
 issues
 are
 being
 highlighted/emphasized
 by
 each
 party.
 
 What
 are
 they
 saying?
 
 Listen
 carefully
 and
 read
 between
the
lines;


recommendations
of
the
universe;
 
 11.


 Caveats
and
Limitations
 As
 indicated,
 the
 authors
 respect
 the
 complexity
 and
 sensitivity
 of
 these
 issues.

It
is
also
understood
that
students
will
have
very
limited
time
for
 conducting
 research
 beyond
 the
 common
 facts
 and
 confidential
 instructions.
 
 
 Where
 possible,
 it
 is
 encouraged
 for
 students
 from
 those
 countries/regions
 represented
 in
 the
 simulation
 to
 offer
 their
 knowledge
 and
experience
in
a
manner
that
might
inform
all
participants
as
to
more
 detailed
historical
and
factual
information.
 Conclusions
 It
is
expected
that
students
will
perform
the
following
work
as
part
of
this
 simulation:
 1.

2. 3. 4. 5.

7.

Facilitator/Mediator
 Instructions
 –
 After
 the
 opening
 statements,
 the
 facilitator/mediators
 will
 lead
 discussion
 on
 further
 agenda
 setting
 and
 may
 recommend
 the
 formation
 of
 “sub
 working
 groups.”
 
 One
 facilitator/mediator
will
accompany
each
group.



 8.

Practice
 the
 skills
 of
 Brainstorming
 Solutions
 ‐
 One
 technique
 discussed
 in
 the
 training
 is
 “brainstorming”
 –
 the
 generation/creation
 of
 multiple
 solutions.
 Within
 the
 sub‐working
 groups,
 the
 facilitator/mediators
 will
 suggest
 “round
 robin”
 inputs
 where
 each
 person
 present
 can
 offer
 proposed
framing
of
the
sub
issues
for
agenda
setting
and
 later
 use
 a
 similar
 process
 for
 generating
 possible
 solutions,
recommendations;


Read
 common
 instructions
 and
 confidential
 instructions
 carefully.

It
may
be
useful
to
develop
a
simple
chart
that
seeks
 to
 identify
 the
 interests
 of
 each
 party
 to
 the
 negotiation,
 possible
options,
BATNAs,
and
objective
criteria;
 Prepare
 Opening
 Statement
 ‐
 this
 should
 be
 in
 the
 form
 of
 a
 written
 statement
 that
 can
 be
 submitted
 after
 the
 opening
 statements
are
concluded;
 Develop
 recommendations
 and
 proposed
 options
 for
 consideration
 and
 utilize
 negotiation/mediation
 skills
 to
 advance
the
process;
 Develop
interim
or
final
agreements;
and
 Have
 fun,
 be
 hard
 on
 the
 problems
 and
 soft
 on
 the
 people.
 Develop
 “diplomatic
 relationships”
 that
 encourage
 solution
 oriented
dialogue
with
your
counterparts
regardless
of
origin.



 Other
Ground
Rules
 To
 facilitate
 maximum
 learning
 in
 this
 very
 short
 period
 of
 time,
 the
 following
ground
rules
will
be
strictly
observed
and
enforced:
 1.

2.


 9.

Consensus
 vs.
 Divided
 Outcomes
 ‐
 The
 facilitator/mediator
 will
 identify
 a
 shared
 aspiration
 of
 emerging
 with
 concrete
 recommendations
 that
 reflect
 an
 agreement
of
all
parties.
Where
agreement
is
not
possible,
 parties
will
be
encouraged
to
identify
potential
procedural
 steps
 including
 follow‐up
 meetings,
 identification
 of
 experts
 for
 information
 gathering
 or
 for
 the
 creation
 of
 more
refined
proposals.




3.

4.


 10.

Reconvening
 with
 Respective
 Universes
 ‐
 After
 the
 completion
 of
 several
 sub‐working
 group
 meetings,
 the
 larger
 universe
 will
 re‐convene
 for
 “reporting
 back”
 and
 finalization
of
interim
or
final
text
that
will
constitute
the


Final
Debriefing
and
Evaluation
‐
At
the
conclusion
of
the
 exercise,
 participants
 will
 reconvene
 with
 the
 class
 merging
for
reporting
back
outcomes
to
all
students.

This
 part
 of
 the
 process
 may
 be
 used
 for
 reporting
 substantive
 outcomes/recommendations
 as
 well
 as
 comments
 on
 process—what
worked,
what
inhibited
progress,
etc.


No
 walkouts
 ‐
 Parties
 may
 take
 a
 break,
 caucus
 within
 their
 own
 team
 or
 with
 other
 teams,
 but
 there
 will
 be
 no
 walkouts
 or
 boycotts
 of
 the
 process.
 
 (This
 is
 to
 allow
 all
 students
 maximum
 opportunity
 to
 develop
 skills
 within
 the
framework
of
the
negotiations);
 No
physical
violence
or
contact
‐
Under
no
circumstances
 may
 parties
 engage
 in
 any
 acts
 of
 violence
 or
 physical
 intimidation.
 
 Remember,
 this
 IS
 just
 a
 simulation
 exercise—a
learning
experience!
 Be
 respectful
 of
 all
 participants
 ‐
 Even
 if
 counterparts
 or
 team
 mates
 engage
 in
 annoying
 behavior
 or
 seem
 to
 be
 taking
 unprincipled
 positions,
 practice
 your
 diplomatic
 skills
 to
 engage
 them
 on
 the
 issues.
 Remember
 that
 the
 facilitator/mediators
have
a
tough
job,
so
be
respectful
and
 try
to
help
them
succeed.
Their
success
is
ultimately
your
 success;
 Announce
 any
 planned
 absences
 ‐
 Students
 are
 expected
 to
 participate
 throughout
 the
 simulation.
 Please
 inform
 instructors,
 teammates,
 or
 facilitator/mediators
 of
 any
 situation
that
might
prevent
your
full
participation.



 
 


"Promoting
Peace
through
Dialogue”
Amman
2008



healthcare,
nutrition,
and
shelter
should
be
 a
goal
to
be
achieved
through
the
 cooperation
of
all
parties.


CONFIDENTIAL
INSTRUCTIONS
 FOR
EGYPT



 c.

Congratulations!

You
have
been
selected
by
your
government
to
represent
 its
interests
in
these
important
United
Nations
deliberations
on
critical
 issues
currently
facing
the
Middle
East
region.
 For
purposes
of
this
multilateral
negotiation/mediation
please
assume
the
 following:
 1. 2. 3.

4.

5.

6. 7.

8.

You
have
full
authority
to
explore
any
and
all
options
that
may
 lead
to
concrete
recommendations
on
all
issues
that
may
 protect
and
advance
our
nation’s
interests;
 You
will
maintain
regular
contact
with
the
home
office
through
 secure
wire
transmission
or
internet
as
proscribed
by
official
 communications
protocols;
 You
are
the
sole
representative
of
the
Egyptian
negotiation
 delegation.

You
have
been
selected
because
of
your
known
 expertise,
diplomatic
achievement,
and
experience.

We
expect
 you
to
speak
as
the
voice
of
Egypt
at
all
times
in
the
public
 sessions;
 Determine
the
authority
of
all
counterparts
and
work
to
secure
 signatures
of
all
parties
present
on
interim,
draft,
or
final
 agreements;
 Because
the
objectives
of
this
working
group
are
to
design
and
 present
recommendations
to
all
parties
in
the
region
and
to
the
 broader
United
Nations
community,
you
should
consider
 making
recommendations
that
may
result
in
the
parties
 agreement
to
continued
future
meetings,
conferences,
or
 working
groups;
 With
respect
to
any
final
recommendations,
be
sure
to
include,
 where
appropriate,
specific
dates
and
timetables
for
future
 meetings,
conferences,
or
implementation
protocols;
 You
are
strongly
encouraged
to
find
a
path
to
peace.

The
 current
crisis
will
lead
to
more
death
and
destruction,
especially
 for
our
nation.

We
will
take
great
pride
if
your
contributions
 allow
for
a
breakthrough
in
the
current
crisis.
 With
respect
to
the
issues
identified,
consider
the
following:
 a. Border
Security
 i. Protection
of
our
national
sovereignty
is
of
 paramount
concern;
keep
in
mind
that
the
 threat
of
violating
Egypt's
national
 sovereignty
comes
from
Israel
because
of
 the
negative
experience
Egypt
had
with
 Israel
when
the
latter
launched
a
pre‐ emptive
attack
on
Egypt
in
1967
and
led
to
 what
is
known
as
the
six‐days‐war
(the
 setback
or
"AL
NAKSA"
in
Arabic).

 ii. Appropriate
security
measures
to
protect
 our
nation’s
interests
will
be
preserved;
 iii. Respect
for
the
sovereignty
of
other
nations
 is
a
principle
we
respect;
 iv. Where
sovereignty
had
been
violated,
 appropriate
reforms
should
be
sought.
 
 b.

Nuclear
Weapons


 Some
parties
to
these
negotiations
are
known
to
 be
nuclear
weapon
states
such
as
the
United
States.
 Others
are
strongly
presumed
to
have
developed
 nuclear
weapons
such
as
Israel.

Others
may
or
may
 not
be
engaged
in
the
development
of
nuclear
 weapons.

You
are
instructed
to
negotiate
regional
 commitments
that
may
curtail
the
future
 proliferation
of
nuclear
weapons
or
other
interim
 steps
that
might
lead
to
greater
regional
security:
 i. ii. iii.

Seek
commitments
to
non‐proliferation
of
 nuclear
weapons;
 Explore
pre‐conditions
that
might
lead
to
 disarmament
of
existing
or
suspected
 nuclear
states;
 Identify
future
steps
that
might
create
a
 regional
monitoring
body
to
prevent
the
 accidental
or
unintended
use
of
nuclear
 materials
by
state
or
non
state
actors
in
the
 region.



 Assume
further
that
your
country
is
made
up
of
the
following
and
that
you
 represent
the
currently
recognized
head
of
state,
President
Mohammad
 Housni
Moubarak
since
October
14,
1981.
Keep
in
mind
that
the
Prime
 Minister
is
Ahmad
Nazif
and
the
minister
of
foreign
affairs
is
Ahmad
 Maher.
 o o o o

o o o o o

o 


Population:
82
million
 Government:
Semi‐Presidential
Republic
 Chief
of
state:
President
/
Chief
of
Government:
Prime
Minister
 
Refugees
&
Internally
displaced
persons:
60,000‐80,000
Iraqi
 refugees,
70,198
Palestinian
refugees
(Palestinian
Territories),
 and
12,157
(Sudan)
 GDP:
$404
billion
 Language(s):
Arabic
(official).
English
and
French
are
widely
 understood
by
educated
classes

 Military:
Army,
Navy,
Air
Force,
Air
Defense
Command
and
 Paramilitary
Forces.
 Military
Expenditure
(%GDP):
3.4%
(est.
2005)
 Ethnic
groups:
Egyptian
98%,
Berber,
Nubian,
Bedouin,
and
 Beja
1%,
Greek,
Armenian,
other
European
(primarily
Italian
 and
French)
1%
 Religion:
Muslim
(mostly
Sunni)
90%,
Coptic
9%,
other
 Christian
1%.



 
 


Refugees
 i. Return
of
refugee
populations
to
countries
 of
origin
is
a
broad
aspiration;
therefore,
 cooperation
of
the
states
hosting
the
 refugees
is
highly
appreciated.

 ii. Safe
treatment
and
respect
for
the
human
 rights
of
all
refugee
populations
is
a
 principle
we
embrace;

 iii. Identification
of
resources
for
provision
of


"Promoting
Peace
through
Dialogue”
Amman
2008



International
Training
Seminar
and
Conference
 Budget
 Program
Director
 Salary
and
Benefits
 7%
 Executive
Director
 Salary
and
Benefits
 12%


Office
Rental/ Occupancy
Costs
 4%


Offline/Online
 Marketing
 4%


Travel
and
 Accommodation
 for
Support
Staff
 9%


Direct
Program
Costs
 Related
to
Partner
 Institute
 19%


Travel,
 Accommodations,
and
 Fees
for
Trainers
and
 Guest
Speakers
 22%


Travel,
 Accommodations,
and
 Scholarships
for
 Student
Participants
 and
Conf.
Attendees
 23%


Direct
Program
Costs
Related
to
Partner
Institute

$20,349


(Includes
facilities
at
UNU,
catering
for
training
seminar,
split
catering
costs
and
cultural
nights,
site
visit
transportation,
AV
support,
security,
 cleaning
costs,
technological
requirements,
wiring
fees,
foreign
transaction/ATM
withdrawal
fees,
petty
cash,
miscellaneous
expenses.)


Travel,
Accommodations,
and
Scholarships
for
Student
Participants
and
 Conference
Attendees
$24,901.79
 (Includes
hotel
accommodations,
stipends
for
student
travel
and
visas,
ground
transportation.)


Travel,
Accomodations,
and
Fees
for
Trainers
and
Guest
Speakers
$23,933.91


(Includes
airfare
for
trainers
and
speakers,
Global
Majority
International
Advisory
Board,
ground
transportation,
visa
fees,
miscellaneous
 expenses/stipends.)


Travel
and
Accommodations
for
Support
Staff
$9,312.22
 (Includes
travel,
airfare,
visa
fees
and
airport
transportation
for
six
support
staff.)


Offline/Online
Marketing
$4,504.29


(Includes
phone
and
mailing
costs,
printed
promotional
materials,
bags,
shipping,
t‐shirts,
brochures,
posters,
certificates,
directories,
pens.)


Global
Majority
Executive
Director
Salary
$12,480.00
 Program
Director
Salary
and
Benefits
$7,500.00
 Office
Rental/Occupancy
Costs
$4,200.00


Total
Expenses
$107,181.22
 


"Promoting
Peace
through
Dialogue”
Amman
2008



Project‐Related
Income
 Seminar
Student
Income

$60,900.00
 Conference
Registration
Fee

$1,000


Pledged
Sponsorship
and
Grants

$51,750.00
 (Friends
of
the
Middle
East
Scholarship,
Thibault
Scholarship,
MIIS
Sponsorship,
REM
Contribution,
Hunter
 Sponsorship,
Hunter
Sponsorship
#2,
Issa
Grant,
Joe
Mark
Sponsorship,
Lau
Sponsorship,
Dooley
Sponsorship,
 Hayman
Sponsorship.)


Total
Project
Related
Income
$113,
650.00


Pledged
 Sponsorships
and
 Grants
 45%


Seminar
Student
 Income
 54%


Conference
 Registration
Fee
 1%


Project
Income


$113,650.00


Project
Expenses
 


$107,181.22



 Project
Balance

 


$6,468.78


"Promoting
Peace
through
Dialogue”
Amman
2008



Faculty
Biographies
 Dr.
Tatsushi
Arai


International
Advisory
Board,
Global
Majority;
 Assistant
Professor,
School
for
International
 Training
 Tatsushi
(Tats)
Arai,
Ph.D.,
is
Assistant
Professor
 of
Conflict
Transformation
at
the
School
for
 International
Training
(SIT)
in
Vermont,
USA.
 Before
joining
SIT,
he
taught
conflict
resolution
 and
public
policy
at
George
Mason
University
in
 Virginia.
 His
 commitment
 in
 conflict
 work
 evolved
 from
 his
 first
 encounter
 with
 victims
 of
 radiation
 sickness
 in
 Hiroshima
 in
 1984.
 His
 journey
 in
 conflict
 transformation
 took
 him
 to
 post‐ genocide
 Rwanda
 as
 a
 university
 lecturer
 of
 international
 relations
 and
 as
 a
 humanitarian
 NGO
 representative,
 to
 the
 Japanese
 branch
 of
 an
 American
 company
 as
 a
 personnel
 specialist
 responsible
 for
 managing
 cross‐cultural
 industrial
 disputes,
 and
 to
 diverse
 settings
 of
 public
peacemaking
in
the
United
States,
Bosnia,
 Lesotho,
the
Taiwan
Strait,
and
elsewhere.
 Tats'
 recent
 publications
 include:
 book
 chapters
 titled
 "A
 Journey
 Toward
 Cultural
 Fluency"
 and
 "When
 the
 Waters
 of
 Culture
 and
 Conflict
 Meet,"
 both
 in
 Conflict
 Across
 Cultures:
 A
 Unique
Experience
of
Briding
Differences,
edited
 by
M.
LeBaron
and
V.
Pillay
(2006,
Intercultural
 Press)
 and
 an
 experimental
 study
 titled
 "E‐ Mediation:
 Evaluating
 the
 Impact
 of
 an
 Electronic
 Mediator
 on
 Negotiating
 Behavior"
 with
 D.
 Druckman
 and
 J.
 Druckman
 in
 Group
 Decision
 and
 Negotiation
 (2004).
 His
 current
 projects
focus
on
such
subjects
as
creativity
and
 paradigm
 shifts,
 symbolism,
 an
 East
 Asia
 community
 (including
 the
 Yasukuni
 shrine
 and
 Japanese
history
textbooks)
conflict
history,
and
 post‐conflict
 reconciliation
 and
 development,
 especially
 in
 sub‐Sahara
 Africa.Tats
 earned
 a
 Bachelor's
degree
in
law
at
Waseda
University
in
 Tokyo,
 a
 Master's
 degree
 in
 international
 policy
 studies
 at
 the
 Monterey
 Institute
 of
 International
 Studies
 in
 California,
 and
 a
 Ph.D.
 in
 conflict
 analysis
 and
 resolution
 at
 George
 Mason
 University.
 He
 is
 a
 Japanese
 citizen
 and
 married
to
Yuchun
Chen
from
Taiwan
 
 


Dr.
Paul
Arthur


International
Advisory
Board
member,
Global
 Majority;
Course
Director
and
Professor,
Peace
 and
Conflict
Studies,
University
of
Ulster,
UK
 Dr.
 Paul
 Arthur
 is
 Course
 Director
 of
 the
 Graduate
Program
in
Peace
and
Conflict
Studies
 and
 Professor
 of
 Politics
 at
 the
 Schaool
 of
 History
 and
 International
 Affairs,
 University
 of
 Ulster.
 He
 holds
 a
 D.Litt
 degrees
 from
 the
 National
 University
 of
 Ireland,
 in
 addition
 to
 degrees
 from
 Queens
 University
 Belfast
 and
 National
 University
 of
 Ireland.
 He
 has
 authored


five
 books
 ‐
 the
 latest
 being
 "Special
 Relationships:
 Britain,
 Ireland
 and
 the
 Northern
 Ireland
 problem'
 (2001)
 ‐
 and
 over
 seventy
 academic
 articles.
 He
 has
 been
 a
 Senior
Fellow
at
the
US
Institute
of
Peace
and
 a
 Fulbright
 scholar
 at
 Stanford
 University.
 He
 has
 been
 involved
 in
 Track
 Two
 initiatives
 with
British
and
Irish
politicians
and
with
civil
 society
 since
 1990;
 and
 has
 participated
 in
 conflict
 resolution
 workshops
 in
 Colombia,
 Guatemala,
 Sri
 Lanka,
 Palestine
 and
 South
 Africa.
 Besides
 Global
 Majority
 he
 is
 on
 the
 International
Advisory
Board
of
the
Project
on
 Justice
 in
 Transitional
 Societies.
 He
 lectures
 widely
 in
 Europe
 and
 the
 United
 States.
 
 


Dr.


Ibtesam


Programme
Officer,
UNU‐ILI


Al‐Atiyat


Women
 and
 Youth
 Programme
 Officer
 at
 the
 UNU/ILI,
 holds
 a
 PhD
 in
 political
 Sociology
 from
 the
 Freie
 Universitaet
 in
 Berlin
 German,
 has
 served
 as
 Programme
 Officer
 at
 the
 Jordanian
 Commission
 for
 Women
 and
 was
 awarded
 a
 Fulbright
 Scholar
 in
 Residence
 scholarship,
where
she
spent
an
academic
year
 teaching
 at
 the
 University
 Wisconsin/
 Green
 Bay.
Was
a
consultant
on
gender
and
women’s
 issues
 for
 several
 international
 organizations
 among
 which:
 the
 World
 Bank
 and
 International
IDEA.
Published
a
book
on
“The
 Women’s
 Movement
 in
 Jordan”
 and
 several
 articles
 among
 which
 “Women
 and
 Political
 Participation”
 and
 “Women
 in
 the
 Judicial
 System”
 in
 Jordan
 and
 Women’s
 Networks
 in
 the
MENA
Region.
 
 


Dr.
Michael
Buckley


Board
of
Directors
Member,
Global
Majority;
 Assistant
Professor,
Department
of
Philosophy,
 Lehman
College,
City
University
of
New
York
 Dr.
 Buckley
 is
 an
 Assistant
 Professor
 at
 Lehman
College,
City
University
of
New
York.
 His
 areas
 of
 research
 include
 political
 philosophy
 and
 ethics
 with
 an
 emphasis
 on
 applied
 issues
 in
 the
 areas
 of
 business
 ethics
 and
global
justice.
He
is
also
the
Treasurer
and
 Board
 member
 of
 Global
 Majority,
 which
 he
 joined
in
2005.
Dr.
Buckley
received
his
Ph.D.
 in
philosophy
from
Emory
University
in
2006.



 
 Dr.
 Rita
 Cameron
 Wedding

 International
 Advisory
 Board
 member,
 Global
 Majority;
 Department
 Chair
 and
 Professor,
 Women’s
 and
 Ethnic
 Studies
 Department,
 California
State
University
Sacramento


Rita
 Cameron
 Wedding,
 Ph.D.
 is
 the
 Chair
 of


the
 department
 of
 Women’s
 Studies
 and
 a
 professor
 of
 Women’s
 Studies
 and
 Ethnic
 Studies
 at
 California
 State
 University,
 Sacramento.
 Dr.
 Cameron
 Wedding’s
 scholarship
 focuses
 on
 race
 and
 gender
 disproportionality
 in
 institutions
 like
 child
 welfare,
 and
 its
 implications
 to
 the
 education
 and
 the
 criminal
 justice
 system.
 Dr.
 Cameron
 Wedding’s
work
on
diversity
and
social
justice
is
 international
in
scope.
Her
work
in
Africa,
China
 and
Mexico
has
focused
on
the
economic
status
 of
 women,
 domestic
 violence,
 environmental
 racism
 and
 immigration.
 As
 a
 Fulbright
 Scholar
 she
 conducted
 research
 in
 Tanzania
 and
 South
 Africa
 on
 women’s
 informal
 economy.
 She
 is
 currently
 working
 on
 a
 collaboration
 with
 faculty
 from
 California
 State
 University,
 Sacramento,
UNISA
(University
of
South
Africa)
 and
 the
 Human
 Rights
 Foundation
 of
 Johannesburg
to
develop
an
institute
in
2008
to
 address
 issues
 of
 the
 African
 Diaspora.
 In
 2005
 and
 2007
 she
 was
 a
 guest
 on
 a
 national
 South
 African
 talk
 radio
 show
 in
 Johannesburg
 and
 Cape
Town
South
Africa.
 In
2003
Dr.
Cameron
Wedding
co‐edited
a
text‐ book,
 Ethnic
 America:
 Reading
 in
 Race,
 Class
 and
 Gender.
 In
 2004
 she
 co‐authored
 Institutions,
 Ideologies
 and
 Individuals:
 Feminist
 Perspectives
 on
 Gender,
 Race
 and
 Class.
 Also
 in
 2004
 Dr.
 Cameron
 Wedding
 received
 the
 Outstanding
 Teacher
 of
 the
 Year
 Award
 for
 the
 College
 of
 Social
 Sciences
 and
 Interdisciplinary
 Studies
 at
 CSUS.
 Dr.
 Cameron
 Wedding
 served
 two
 terms
 as
 a
 Governor’s
 appointee
 to
 the
 California
 Commission
 on
 the
 Status
of
Women
and
was
appointed
in
2007
to
 the
California
Board
of
Behavioral
Sciences.
 
 


Dr.
Hassan
Barari


Senior
Researcher
at
the
Center
for
Strategic
 Studies,
University
of
Jordan
 Hassan
A.
Barari
is
a
senior
researcher
who
is
in
 charge
 of
 the
 Israeli
 Studies
 Unit
 at
 the
 CSS
 at
 the
 University
 of
 Jordan.
 He
 received
 his
 PhD
 from
Durham
University
in
September
2001.
He
 received
 his
 MA
 from
 Leeds
 University
 in
 1995
 and
his
BA
from
the
University
of
Jordan
in
1992.
 He
obtained
a
diploma
in
Hebrew
language
and
 literature
 from
 the
 Hebrew
 University
 in
 1998.
 Dr.
 Barari
 masters
 three
 languages
 (Hebrew,
 Arabic,
and
English).
 He
 was
 a
 Senior
 Fellow
 at
 the
 United
 States
 Institute
 of
 Peace
 (USIP)
 based
 in
 Washington,
 D.C
 for
 the
 year
 2006/07.
 He
 also
 served
 as
 Academic
 Director
 for
 The
 School
 for
 International
 Training/
 World
 Learning‐
 Vermont
 University
 in
 2005.
 He
 lectured
 American
 students
 with
 CIEE
 while
 at
 the
 University
of
Jordan
on
a
study
abroad
program.
 Dr.
Barari
taught
at
the
University
of
Durham
in


"Promoting
Peace
through
Dialogue”
Amman
2008



Faculty
Biographies
 the
year
2000/2001.
As
a
member
to
the
Board
 of
 Directors
 of
 the
 Institute
 of
 Diplomacy
 in
 Amman,
 he
 has
 been
 involved
 in
 training
 diplomats
 for
 the
 Jordanian
 Ministry
 of
 Foreign
Affairs.
 Dr.
 Barari
 has
 served
 as
 a
 columnist
 for
 the
 English
 Jordan
 Times
 (2001‐2004)
 and
 for
 the
 Arabic
 Jordanian
 Daily,
 al‐Ghad
 (2004‐ present).
 He
 also
 writes
 for
 numerous
 newspapers
such
as
al‐Hayat
and
the
Daily
Star
 on
 occasional
 basis.
 He
 is
 also
 a
 frequent
 commentator
 for
 key
 Arab
 and
 international
 TV
stations.
 His
 core
 area
 of
 research
 is
 the
 Arab‐Israeli
 conflict
 and
 the
 Middle
 East
 peace
 process,
 Israeli
 domestic
 and
 foreign
 policy,
 Israel‐ Jordan
 relations,
 regional
 security
 and
 Middle
 Eastern
politics.
He
has
written
extensively
on
 the
Arab‐Israeli
conflict
and
the
peace
process
 in
 Arabic,
 English,
 and
 Hebrew.His
 most
 recent
 books
 include
 Israelism,
 Arab
 Scholarship
 on
 Israel:
 A
 Critical
 Assessment
 (London:
Ithaca,
2009),
Israeli
Politics
and
the
 Middle
 East
 Peace
 (New
 York
 and
 London:
 Routledge,
 2004),
 Israel
 Jordan
 ten
 years
 later
 (Amman:
 CSS,
 2004).
 He
 has
 also
 contributed
 numerous
 scholarly
 articles
 to
 different
 international
 journals
 and
 participated
 in
 scores
of
international
conferences
throughout
 Europe,
the
United
States,
and
the
Middle
East
 
 


from
 Sarajevo,
 BH,
 speaks
 several
 languages
 and
 is
 married
 to
 her
 husband
 Nico.
 
 


Cameron
Hunter


Dr.
Boatamo
Mosupyoe


Executive
Director
and
Board
of
Directors,
 Global
Majority
 Cameron
 Hunter
 has
 an
 MBA
 and
 an
 MA
 in
 International
 Policy
 Studies
 with
 a
 specialization
 in
 Negotiation
 and
 Conflict
 Resolution.
She
joined
Global
Majority
in
2005
 working
 for
 the
 local
 education
 and
 training
 program.
 Originally
 from
 Santa
 Ynez,
 CA,
 she
 received
 her
 BA
 from
 UC
 Berkeley
 in
 English
 Literature.
 Prior
 to
 her
 position
 with
 Global
 Majority,
 Cameron
 worked
 as
 a
 researcher
 for
 the
 Center
 for
 Nonproliferation
 Studies
 and
 editor
 of
 the
 GLOBE
 Management
 Review
 in
 Monterey;
intern
at
the
Palestine
Israel
Journal
 in
 East
 Jerusalem;
 horse
 trainer
 in
 southern
 Portugal;
 and
 with
 Mother
 Teresa's
 Home
 for
 Abandoned
 Children
 in
 Delhi.She
 has
 studied,
 worked
 and
 traveled
 in
 Japan,
 Russia,
 Africa,
 India,
 Europe
 and
 the
 Middle
 East.
 Her
 recent
 publications
 involve
 issues
 facing
 Iraqi
 scientists
 and
 academics
 during
 the
 reconstruction
 of
 the
 state
 published
 by
 the
 Nuclear
 Threat
 Initiative,
 as
 well
 as
 articles
 advocating
 negotiation
 between
 Israel
 and
 Palestine
for
the
Ma'an
News
Agency.
 
 


Raja
Hiyari


Director,
Partners
–
Jordan,
Center
for
Civic
 Collaboration
 Ms.
 Raja
 Hiyari
 graduated
 from
 Ohio
 State
 University
 with
 a
 major
 in
 Linguistics.
 She
 currently
 operates
 as
 director
 of
 Partners
 –
 Jordan,
establishing
it
as
a
Jordanian
nonprofit
 organization
 committed
 to
 advance
 civil
 society,
 promoting
 mediation,
 conflict
 management
 and
 culture
 of
 change,
 and
 encouraging
 citizen
 participation
 in
 Jordan’s
 social
 and
 political
 development.
 Raja
 joined
 Partners
 –
 Jordan
 as
 a
 Training
 Manager
 to
 oversee
 trainings
 and
 work
 on
 building
 the
 capacity
of
a
team
of
local
trainers
in
the
field
 of
 conflict
 management
 and
 change
 management,collaborative
 planning,
 mediation,
 consensus
 building,
 advocacy
 and
 good
 governance,
 as
 well
 as
 to
 build
 training
 materials
 and
 trainers’
 guide
 manuals
 on
 mentioned
topics.
 Prior
 to
 this,
 Raja
 worked
 as
 a
 trainer
 in
 the
 Queen
 Zein
 Al‐Sharaf
 Institute
 for
 Development
 (ZENID)
 delivering
 training
 courses
 on
 the
 national
 and
 regional
 level,
 serving
 as
 a
 translator/interpreter
 for
 non‐ Arabic
 speaking
 counterparts,
 and
 managing
 project
 implementation
 on
 the
 community
 level.
 Before
 ZENID,
 Raja
 was
 a
 national


consultant
at
the
United
Nations
Development
 Program
 on
 micro
 finance
 funded
 projects.
 
 


Lejla
Mavris


Programs
Director
and
President,
Global
 Majority
 Lejla
 Mavris
 is
 a
 founding
 member
 of
 Global
 Majority.
 She
 was
 the
 executive
 director
 of
 Global
 Majority
 in
 2006‐2007
 and
 currently
 is
 the
 Programs
 Director.
 Lejla
 received
 a
 Master’s
 degree
 in
 International
 Policy
 Studies
 and
 a
 Certificate
 in
 Conflict
 Resolution
 from
 the
Monterey
Institute
of
International
Studies
 in
 California,
 with
 further
 training
 in
 conflict
 analysis
 through
 United
 States
 Institute
 of
 Peace.
 For
 over
 five
 years
 now,
 she
 teaches
 students
and
teachers
of
Monterey
County
and
 advocates
 for
 incorporating
 conflict
 resolution
 education
 to
 public
 school
 curriculums.
 She
 is
 also
 a
 trainer
 of
 international
 negotiation
 and
 mediation
 skills
 and
 has
 conducted
 such
 trainings
 in
 various
 cultural
 and
 regional
 settings
in
Costa
Rica,
Cyprus,
Czech
Republic,
 Jordan,
 Nepal,
 and
 the
 US.
 Previously,
 Lejla
 worked
at
the
United
Nations
Refugee
Agency's
 Evaluation
 and
 Policy
 Analysis
 Unit
 office
 in
 Geneva
 for
 the
 International
 Professional
 Service
 Semester,
 publishing
 her
 work
 on
 refugee
 smuggling
 and
 migration.
 During
 her
 studies,
 she
 served
 as
 an
 intern
 on
 environmental
 program
 development
 at
 the
 United
 Nations
 Development
 Programme
 office
 in
 Sarajevo,
 Bosnia‐Herzegovina.
 Lejla
 is


International
Advisory
Board
and
Board
of
 Directors,
Global
Majority;
Director
and
 Professor,
Pan
African
Studies,
Ethnic
Studies
 Department,
California
State
University
 Sacramento
 Dr.
 Boatamo
 "Ati"
 Mosupyoe
 is
 Professor
 and
 Director
 of
 Pan
 African
 Studies
 in
 the
 Ethnic
 Studies
 Department
 at
 California
 State
 University,
 Sacramento.
 She
 received
 some
 of
 her
 education
 in
 South
 Africa
 and
 her
 Masters
 and
 Ph.D.
 from
 the
 University
 of
 California,
 Berkeley.
 She
 came
 to
 the
 United
 States
 after
 the
 loss
 of
 her
 three‐year‐old
 son,
 Thamsanqa,
 and
 husband,
 Simmy,
 on
 the
 same
 day
 and
 at
 the
 same
 time
 when
 she
 was
 expecting
 one
 of
 her
 daughters.
 She
 worked
 with
 the
 Anti‐ Apartheid
Movement
and
was
also
the
chair
of
 the
 South
 African
 International
 Student
 Organization
 and
 a
 member
 of
 its
 national
 executive.
In
addition
to
being
an
activist,
she
is
 also
 a
 scholar
 who
 has
 authored
 three
 books,
 contributed
chapters
in
books,
and
edited
three
 others.
 Two
 of
 the
 latest
 books
 that
 she
 edited
 are
 called
 "SOWETO
 Explodes"
 and
 chronicles
 the
 role
 of
 the
 youth
 and
 civil
 society
 in
 the
 struggle
 against
 apartheid
 and
 Institutions,
 Ideologies,
 and
 Individuals.
 She
 has
 participated
 as
 a
 trainer
 in
 conflict
 resolution
 workshops
 in
 the
 USA,
 South
 Africa,
 Jordan,
 Nepal,
 and
 Costa
 Rica.Her
 current
 research
 interests
 focus
 on
 immigration
 issues
 and
 recent
 African
 immigrants
 in
 the
 U.S.
 Dr.
 Mosupyoe
 has
 received
 numerous
 awards
 that
 honor
 her
 contribution
 as
 a
 teacher,
 a
 peace
 activist,
and
a
community
worker.
To
name
but
 a
 few:
 she
 has
 been
 cited
 four
 times
 in
 Who's
 Who
 Among
 America's
 Teachers,
 received
 a
 1999
Pierce
College
Outstanding
Faculty
of
the
 Year
 award,
 and
 received
 the
 A
 Roland
 Weis
 Award
 for
 her
 contribution
 to
 promoting
 awareness
 against
 genocide.
 In
 addition
 to
 being
on
the
Global
Majority
Board
of
Directors
 and
 the
 International
 Advisory
 Board,
 she
 promotes
 bead
 work
 of
 rural
 South
 African
 women
 in
 the
 USA
 and
 the
 world
 to
 help
 alleviate
poverty.
 
 
 
 
 


Dr.
Jairam
Reddy
 Director,
UNU‐ILI


Dr
Reddy
is
a
citizen
of
South
Africa
and
holds


"Promoting
Peace
through
Dialogue”
Amman
2008



Faculty
Biographies
 the
 degrees
 of
 Master
 of
 Science
 of
 the
 University
 of
 Manitoba,
 Canada
 and
 Doctor
 of
 Philosophy
 of
 the
 University
 of
 the
 Western
 Cape,
South
Africa.
He
was
Vice
‐Chancellor
of
 the
 University
 of
 Durban
 Westville
 from
 1990‐ 94.
 In
 January
 1995
 he
 was
 appointed
 to
 chair
 the
 National
 Commission
 on
 Higher
 Education
 of
 South
 Africa.
 The
 University
 of
 the
 Western
 Cape,
South
Africa,
Birmingham
University
and
 the
Open
University
in
England
have
conferred
 Honorary
Doctorates
on
him.He
was
appointed
 by
the
Secretary
General
of
the
United
Nations
 to
 serve
 on
 the
 Council
 of
 the
 United
 Nations
 University,
 Tokyo,
 Japan
 for
 the
 period
 1998‐ 2004.
He
was
elected
to
chair
the
Council
for
a
 two
 year
 term
 from
 2000‐2002.
 Dr
 Reddy
 was
 awarded
 a
 Senior
 Fulbright
 Scholarship
 to
 undertake
 studies
 in
 Higher
 Education
 at
 Michigan
 State
 University
 in
 1999.
 He
 was
 a
 member
 of
 the
 Board
 of
 the
 Higher
 Education
 Quality
Committee
in
South
Africa
(2002‐05),
is
 Auditor
 of
 the
 Australian
 Universities
 Quality
 Agency
(2006)
and
is
a
member
of
the
Board
of
 the
 African
 Centre
 for
 the
 Constructive
 Resolution
 of
 Disputes
 (ACCORD)
 and
 Chair
 the
 Council
 of
 the
 Durban
 University
 of
 Technology,
 South
 Africa,
 2007.
 Dr
 Reddy
 is
 currently
 Director
 of
 the
 United
 Nations
 University
 International
 Leadership
 Institute,
 Amman,
Jordan
–
July
2008


Amb.
Jacob
Rosen



Ambassador,
Embassy
of
Israel
in
Jordan
 Jacob
 Rosen
 was
 born
 in
 Poland
 in
 1948.
 His
 family
immigrated
to
Israel
in
1957,
where
from
 1966
 to
 1969
 he
 served
 in
 the
 Israeli
 Defense
 Forces.
 In
 1972
 he
 received
 a
 B.A.
 in
 Middle
 Eastern
 Studies
 from
 the
 Hebrew
 University
 in
 Jerusalem.
 Since
 1973
 he
 has
 worked
 in
 the
 Israeli
Ministry
of
Foreign
Affairs,
with
postings
 to
 The
 Hague,
 London,
 New
 York,
 Cairo
 and
 Delhi.
In
December
1994,
he
opened
the
Israeli
 Embassy
in
Amman,
Jordan,
and
served
there
as
 Chargé
 d'Affaires
 until
 the
 arrival
 of
 the
 Ambassador.
 He
 remained
 in
 Amman
 as
 Deputy
 Chief
 of
 Mission
 until
 July
 2000,
 when
 he
 was
 appointed
 Consul
 General
 of
 Israel
 in
 Atlanta,
 Georgia.
 Since
 November
 2002,
 he
 has
 been
 Political
 Advisor
 for
 International
 Affairs
 to
 the
 Mayor
 of
 Jerusalem.
 He
 is
 fluent
 in
 Arabic,
 Polish,
 Dutch,
 English,
 and
 Hebrew,
 and
 is
 author
 of
 Crossing
 the
 Jordan
 River:
 An
 Israeli
 Diplomat's
 Travels
 in
 the
 Arab
 World
 (2003).



 Nicholas
Tomb



 Izumi
Wakugawa


Board
of
Directors,
Global
Majority
 Izumi
Wakugawa
is
a
native
of
Okinawa,
Japan.
 She
 is
 a
 founding
 member
 of
 Global
 Majority,
 worked
 as
 Treasurer
 of
 the
 organization
 since
 its
inception
in
2003
to
2006.She
also
serves
the
 organization
as
a
finance
advisor
and
trainer
of
 conflict
 resolution
 skills
 and
 techniques.She
 obtained
 a
 Bachelor
 of
 Arts
 in
 Politics
 at
 University
 of
 California
 at
 Santa
 Cruz,
 specialized
 in
 international
 law
 and
 political
 philosophy,
 and
 has
 a
 Master
 of
 Arts
 in
 International
 Policy
 Studies
 with
 a
 Certificate
 in
 Nuclear
 Nonproliferation
 Studies
 from
 the
 Monterey
 Institute
 of
 International
 Studies,
 California.Ms.
Wakugawa
worked
as
a
research
 associate
 and
 instructor
 at
 the
 National
 Security
 Affairs
 Department,
 Naval
 Postgraduate
School,
Monterey
California
from
 2002‐2007.
Since
September
2007
she
resides
in
 Nepal
 representing
 Global
 Majority.
 She
 has
 been
 working
 on
 peace
 building
 process
 with
 different
 organizations
 in
 Nepal
 such
 as
 local
 NGOs,
 INGOs
 and
 Ministry
 of
 Peace
 and
 Reconstructions.She
 has
 served
 as
 international
 election
 monitoring
 observer
 through
 Japanese
 Embassy
 in
 Nepal
 for
 the
 Constituent
Assembly
Election
in
April
2008.
 


Vice
President
of
the
Board
of
Directors,
Global
 Majority
 Nicholas
Tomb
is
a
founding
member
of
Global
 Majority.
 His
 primary
 employment
 is
 with
 the
 Center
 for
 Stabilization
 and
 Reconstruction
 Studies
at
the
Naval
Postgraduate
School
where


he
works
as
a
Program
Coordinator,
organizing
 short
 courses
 in
 civil‐military
 relations
 and
 post‐conflict
 reconstruction.Nick
 spent
 a
 year
 teaching
 English
 in
 Japan
 with
 the
 Japan
 Exchange
 and
 Teaching
 Program,
 and
 has
 taught
American
Government
at
the
Monterey
 Peninsula
 College
 in
 Monterey,
 CA
 since
 January
 of
 2005.
 He
 formerly
 served
 as
 President
 of
 the
 Arcata/Camoapa
 Sister
 City
 Project,
 a
 sister
 city
 relationship
 between
 Arcata,
 CA
 and
 Camoapa,
 Nicaragua.
 He
 led
 several
 delegations
 to
 and
 from
 Camoapa,
 delivering
 supplies
 and
 working
 on
 water
 projects
in
the
sister
city.
Nick
received
a
BA
in
 Political
 Science
 from
 Humboldt
 State
 University,
where
he
received
the
distinguished
 "Man
 of
 the
 Year"
 award
 in
 1999.
 He
 received
 an
MA
in
International
Policy
Studies
from
the
 Monterey
 Institute
 of
 International
 Studies,
 which
 included
 certificates
 in
 Conflict
 Resolution
 and
 Commercial
 Diplomacy
 in
 2002.
 Nick
 serves
 as
 the
 Secretary
 on
 Global
 Majority's
Board
of
Directors
and
the
Editor
of
 the
 Global
 Voice,
 Global
 Majority's
 quarterly
 newsletter.


Conference
Panelist


Amb.
Hussein
Hammami


Hussein
Hammami
received
a
diploma
in
 international
affairs
and
diplomacy
1961
after
 completing
a
fellowship
at
the
Carnegie
 Endowment
for
International
Peace
at
Columbia
 University,
New
York,
and
a
BA
in
political
 science
and
communication
in
1958
from
the
 American
University
in
Cairo.
He
is
fluent
in
 English
and
speaks
French,
(Arabic
mother
 tongue).
Mr.
Hammami
joined
the
Jordanian
 Diplomatic
Service
in
1959
and
worked
in
 Jordan's
missions
in
Pakistan,
India,
Chile,
 Lebanon,
Germany,
Tunisia,
and
Egypt
between
 1962
and
1977,
arriving
at
the
rank
of
minister
 plenipotentiary
in
1977.

During
this
period,
he
 also
held
the
positions
of
Director
of
the
 Minister's
Office
in
1967
and
Acting
Chief
of
 Protocol
in
1975.

He
was
sworn
in
as
 Ambassador
in
1978
and
served
as
ambassador
to
 various
countries
including
Syria,
Egypt,
USA,
 Morocco,
Germany,
and
non‐resident
 ambassador
to
Norway
and
Denmark.
Mr.
 Hammami
is
married
and
has
two
daughters.


Amb.
Atallah
Al
Khairy


Atallah
Al
Khairy
is
currently
the
Ambassador
of
 Palestine
in
Jordan;
he
was
a
first
secretary
at
the
 Embassy
when
it
first
opened
its
offices
in
 Amman
in
1985.
He
worked
in
several
positions
 at
the
Palestine
Liberation
Organization
(PLO);
 he
worked
at
the
Ministry
of
Information
in
 Amman
and
Beirut
and
he
was
promoted
to
a
 General
Director
and
was
one
of
the
founders
of
 a
Palestinian
Magazine.


Hon.
Jeanette
Ndhlovu
 The
Honorable
Jeanette
Ndhlovu
was
born
in
 Johannesburg,
South
Africa.

She
completed
 both
her
primary
and
secondary
education
in
 South
Africa,
and
a
year
and
a
half
at
the
 University
of
Zululand.

After
the
traumatic
 events
of
June
16,
1976,
that
led
to
the
shooting
 of
her
younger
brother,
Hastings
Ndlovu,
who
 was
a
student
at
that
time,
she
and
her
two
 sisters
Thandi
and
Granny
left
South
Africa.
 Before
1977,
she
was
involved
with
the
ANC
 underground
structures.

She
came
to
the
United
 States
in
1977
to
help
strengthen
the
anti‐ apartheid
student
movement
and
also
to
pursue
 her
education.

She
enrolled
at
the
University
of
 Missouri
where
she
attained
a
Bachelor
of
Arts
 degree
in
Political
Science
in
1983.

She
later
 completed
a
degree
in
Public
Administration
at
 the
University
of
Missouri‐Columbia.
She
joined
 the
Observer
Mission
of
the
African
National
 Congress
(ANC)
to
the
United
Nations
in
1987
 until
her
departure
from
the
U.S.
in
1994.

While
 with
the
United
Nations
Observer
Mission,
she
 received
a
Master
of
Arts
degree
from
New
York
 University
in
Counseling
Psychology.
During
her
 student
years
in
the
United
States,
she
was


"Promoting
Peace
through
Dialogue”
Amman
2008



Conference
Panelist
Biographies
 engaged
in
anti‐apartheid
campaigns
at
colleges
 and
universities.
She
also
addressed
church,
 civic,
labor
and
elected
officials
throughout
the
 United
States.
In
1994
she
left
the
United
States
 for
South
Africa
where
she
served
on
the
 Management
team
of
the
Independent
Electoral
 Commission.
In
September
2000
she
was
 appointed
Deputy
Permanent
Representative
to
 the
United
Nations.

She
also
served
on
the
 Bureau
of
the
World
Summit
for
Sustainable
 Development
as
an
ex‐officio
member.
She
has
 a
passion
for
human
rights,
particularly
women
 and
children’s
rights;
it
is
no
wonder
that
she
 led
South
Africa’s
New
York
delegation
to
the
 Commission
of
Human
Rights
in
Geneva
where
 she
avidly
advocated
for
these
rights.
Honorable
 J.
Ndhlovu
was
appointed
as
Consul‐General
of
 the
Republic
of
South
Africa
in
Los
Angeles
as
 of
October
2004.


Dr.
Jairam
Reddy
 See
faculty
biographies
 
 



Panel
1:
Prospects
for
Peace— Possibilities
and
Challenges



Dr.
Hassan
A.
Barari
 See
faculty
biographies


Dr.
Barak
Ben‐Zur


Dr.
Barak
Ben‐Zur
is
a
strategic
threats
and
 risks
analyzer,
specializing
in
strategic
 intelligence
analysis
and
counterterrorism.
As
 colonel
in
the
Israel
Defense
Forces
(IDF)
Dr.
 Ben‐Zur
served
the
military
intelligence
branch
 from
1991
to
1994
as
head
of
the
terrorism
 section.
From
1994
to
1996,
he
was
chief
 instructor
in
Israel's
National
Security
College.
 In
1996,
Dr.
Ben‐Zur
joined
the
Israel
Security
 Agency
(ISA,
formerly
known
as
"Shin
Bet")
as
 head
of
the
research
division,
and
later,
special
 assistant
to
the
director.
Currently,
Dr.
Ben‐Zur
 is
a
consultant
to
a
number
of
private,
public
 and
national
entities
and
a
lecturer
at
the
 Interdisciplinary
Center
in
Herzilya,
Israel.
Dr.
 Ben‐Zur
has
a
bachelor's
degree
in
Middle
East
 Studies
and
Arabic
from
Tel
Aviv
University,
a
 master's
degree
in
political
science,
and
a
 doctorate.


Dr.
Moshe
Maoz


Dr.
Moshe
Maoz
is
Professor
Emeritus
of
 Islamic
and
Middle
Eastern
Studies
at
Hebrew
 University
in
Jerusalem.
He
has
published
some
 20
books
and
60
articles
on
Middle
East
history
 and
politics;
notably
on
Syria,
Palestine,
and
 Arab
‐Israeli
relations.
In
press
now
is
an
edited
 book
on
The
Meeting
of
Civilizations‐Muslim,
 Christian,
and
Jewish
an
outcome
of
a
Harvard
 University
conference
last
year.
He
has


participated
in
many
peace
dialogues
with
 Palestinian,
Jordanian
and
Egyptian
scholars.


Ziad
Abu‐Zayyad


Abu‐Zayyad
is
an
Attorney
at
Law
graduate
of
 Damascus
University
1965.
Abu
Zayyad
is
co‐ editor
and
publisher
ofthe
Palestine‐Israel
 Journal
of
Politics,
Economics
and
Culture,
a
 quarterly
journal,
which
he
co‐founded
in
1994
 with
a
prominent
Israeli
journalist,
Victor
 Cygielman,
as
a
joint
Palestinian‐Israeli
 venture.
He
is
also
a
weekly
columnist
of
the
 Arabic
daily
Al‐Quds
newspaper.
In
1986,
well
 before
the
Oslo
Agreement,
Abu
Zayyad
 founded
the
Palestinian
bi‐monthly
Hebrew
 language
journal
Gesher
(The
Bridge)
of
which
 he
was
publisher
and
editor.
He
is
interviewed
 frequently
by
Israeli
and
international
media
 on
current
issues
of
the
Israeli
Palestinian
 Conflict,
and
participated
in
numerous
 Regional
and
International
conferences
on
the
 Arab‐Israeli
conflict,
and
interfaith
dialog.
Abu
 Zayyad
was
an
advisor
to
the
Palestinian
 negotiating
team
in
Washington
DC,
(1992)
 and
later
a
member
of
the
post‐Oslo
 negotiating
team
that
concluded
the
1994
 Israeli‐Palestinian
Agreement
(“The
Cairo
 Agreement”
that
led
to
the
establishment
of
 the
Palestinian
Authority).
Abu
Zayyad
was
the
 head
of
the
Palestinian
delegation
to
the
 Middle
East
multilateral
peace
talks
(the
Arms
 Control
and
Regional
Security
Working
Group
 )
ACRS.
He
is
former
member
of
the
 Palestinian
Legislative
Council
(1996‐2006),
 and
former
Minister
of
State
in
the
PA
(1998‐ 2002),
and
Deputy
Chairman
of
the
Political
 Committee
of
the
Euro‐Med
Parliament
(2004‐ 2005).
Abu
Zayyad
is
co‐author
of
The
West
 Bank
Political
Lexicon
(together
with
two
 prominent
Israelis,
Meron
Benvenisti
and
 Danny
Rubinstein),
and
co‐Editor
of
the
book
 Islamophobia
and
Anti‐Semitism
(together
 with
Hillel
Schenker).

 
 Moderator:
Dr.
Rita
Cameron


Wedding


See
faculty
biographies
 


Panel
2:
Conflicts
in
the
Region— Current
Dynamics
and
Future
 Scenarios


Dr.
Albaqir
Mukhtar
 Dr.
Albaqir
Mukhtar
is
regional
campaign
 coordinator
for
the
Middle
East
and
North
 Africa
(MENA)
region
for
Amnesty
 International,
International
Secretariat.
He
 previously
served
as
a
refugee
project
manager
 in
the
Family
Support
Unit
of
the
BIBINI
 Centre
for
Young
People
in
Manchester,
UK,


and
was
a
consultant
to
Human
Rights
Watch
on
 sharia
law.
Mukhtar
has
taught
in
various
 positions,
including
Middle
Eastern
and
Islamic
 Studies
at
Manchester
Metropolitan
University,
 in
the
department
of
English
at
the
University
of
 Jezira,
Sudan,
and
as
a
secondary
school
teacher
 of
English
in
Sudan.
He
holds
a
Ph.D.
in
Middle
 Eastern
studies,
human
rights,
and
Islamic
law
 from
the
University
of
Manchester;
a
M.Sc.
in
 teaching
English
from
Aston
University,
 Birmingham,
United
Kingdom;
and
a
M.Ed.
in
 curriculum
studies
from
the
University
of
 Khartoum,
Sudan.
Publications
include:
Betting
 on
Knowledge:
Human
Rights
Education
in
the
 Middle
East
and
North
Africa,
editor;
in
Arabic
 (2000),
Human
Rights
in
Islamists
Discourse,
in
 Arabic
(1995).


Dr.
Faten
Ghosn


Dr.
Faten
Ghosn
is
an
Assistant
Professor
in
the
 Department
of
Political
Science
at
the
University
 of
Arizona.

She
received
her
B.A.
and
M.A.
from
 the
American
University
of
Beirut
and
her
Ph.D.
 from
the
Pennsylvania
State
University.
Her
 research
includes
conflict,
conflict
management,
 international
negotiation,
as
well
as
Lebanese
 politics.
Currently
she
is
working
on
a
co‐ authored
project
on
national
reconciliation
in
 Lebanon.


Dr.
Ahmad
Jamil
'Azem


Dr.
Ahmad
Jamil
'Azem
is
a
researcher
in
 International
Relations,
based
in
Abu
Dhabi
‐ The
United
Arab
Emirates.
A
regular
columnist
 in
both
the
Abu
Dhabi
based
newspaper
al
 Ittihad,
and
the
Jordanian
newspaper
al
Ghad.

 Among
his
published
works
are,
1)
Structural
 Transformation
in
Arab
Countries:
Growing
 Legitimacy
of
State
and
the
Shrinking
Role
of
 Governments",
in
"Current
Transformation
and
 their
potential
Role
in
realizing
change
in
the
 Arab
World".[Arabic
and
English],
published
by
 ECSSR
in
Abu
Dhabi.
2)
Jordan
Social
History,
 2003,
Published
by
Al
Urdun
al
Jadid
Research
 Center,
(chapter
on
Covering
Jordan
in
Western
 Studies
(in
Arabic)).
3)
"The
Reconceptualisation
 of
Conflict
Management",
published
in
Peace,
 Conflict
and
Development
Journal,
Vol.
7,
July
 2005.


 Moderator:
Lejla
Mavris
 See
faculty
biographies
 


Panel
3:
Reporting
from
Jordan
on
the
 Arab‐Israeli
Conflict


Jamil
Nimri



Jamil
Nimri

is
currently
a
columnist
on
the
last
 page
of
Alghad
Newspaper,
an
anchor
of
a
 political
talk
show
on
TV,
a
member
of
the
Royal


"Promoting
Peace
through
Dialogue”
Amman
2008



Conference
Panelist
Biographies
 Advisory
of
“We
are
All
Jordan”
Youth
 Commission
and
the
Head
of
the
Jordanian
 Commission
for
Democratic
Culture
(JCDC).
 Mr.
Nimri
used
to
be
an
anchor
of
several
 political
talk
shows,
and
a
writer
in
several
daily
 and
weekly
newspapers.
He
was
also
the
chief
 editor
of
Al
Ahali
Newspaper.
He
also
 participates
in
many
workshops
in
the
field
of
 media,
politics
and
democracy.


Mohammad
Abu
Rumman


Mohammad
Abu
Rumman
is
Executive
Director
 of
the
Features
Department
in
Al‐Ghad
 newspaper
and
a
columnist.
He
also
contributes
 to
a
number
of
Arabic
newspaper
and
 magazines,
such
as
Al‐Hayat
(London).
He
 specializes
in
Islamic
politics
and
US
policy
in
 the
Middle
East.
Previously,
he
was
a
researcher
 in
the
Al‐Ummah
Studies
Center.
He
has
 authored
many
books
on
Islamic
affairs;
the
last
 one
about
the
Brotherhood
in
Jordan
and
the
 last
parliamentary
election.
 Moderator:
Dr.
Ibtesam
Al‐Atiyat
 See
faculty
biographies
 
 


Panel
4:
Role
of
Media
in
Conflict
 Resolution


Hillel
Schenker


Hillel
Schenker
is
co‐editor
of
the
Palestine‐ Israel
Journal,
a
Jerusalem‐based
independent
 English‐language
quarterly,
initiated
and
 maintained
by
a
group
of
prominent
Israeli
and
 Palestinian
academics
and
journalists.
It
aims
to
 shed
light
on,
and
analyze
freely
and
critically,
 the
complex
issues
dividing
Israelis
and
 Palestinians.
Schenker
served
for
13
years
as
an
 editor
of
New
Outlook,
the
Israeli
peace
 monthly
founded
in
the
spirit
of
Martin
Buber’s
 philosophy
of
dialogue
that
served
as
a
vehicle
 for
understanding
Israeli‐Arab
affairs
and
as
a
 catalyst
for
dialogue
and
initiatives
for
peace.
 He
has
written
for
The
Guardian,
The
Nation,
 Los
Angeles
Times,
L.A.
Weekly,
Tikkun,
Israel
 Horizons,
In
These
Times,
the
Israeli‐Hebrew‐ language
press
and
many
other
print
and
 electronic
outlets.
He
was
an
activist
and
co‐ founder
of
the
Peace
Now
movement
and
has
 served
for
many
years
as
spokesperson
for
the
 Israeli
branch
of
International
Physicians
for
 the
Prevention
of
Nuclear
War.
He
is
an
 International
Advisory
Board
member
of
the
 Global
Majority
center
for
non‐violent
conflict
 resolution
based
at
the
Monterey
Institute
of
 International
Studies.
Schenker
earned
his
 Master
of
Science
in
Communications
from
 Clark
University
and
his
Bachelor
of
Arts
in
 Comparative
and
English
Literature
from
Tel
 Aviv
University.


Daoud
Kuttab


Daoud
Kuttab
is
presently
a
Ferris
Professor
of
 Journalism
and
Princeton
University.
He
is
 teaching
a
seminar
on
new
media
in
the
Arab
 world.
Kuttab
is
a
Palestinian
journalist
and
 media
activists.
Born
in
Jerusalem
in
1955,
 Kuttab
studied
in
the
United
States
and
has
 been
working
in
journalism
ever
since
1980.
He
 has
worked
in
the
Arabic
print
press
(Al
Fajr,
 Al
Quds
and
Assinara)
before
moving
to
the
 audio
visual
field.
He
established
and
presided
 over
the
Jerusalem
Film
Institute
in
the
90s.
In
 1995
he
helped
establish
the
Arabic
Media
 Internet
Network
(AMIN)
a
censorship
free
 Arab
web
site.
www.amin.org.
He
established
 and
has
headed
since
1996
the
Institute
of
 Modern
Media
at
Al
Quds
University.
In
1997
 he
partially
moved
to
Amman
(because
of
 family
tragedy
and
remarriage)
and
in
2000
 established
the
Arab
world’s
first
internet
radio
 station
AmmanNet
(www.ammannet.net).
Mr.
 Kuttab
is
active
in
media
freedom
efforts
in
the
 Middle
East.
He
is
an
award
winning
journalist
 and
TV
producer.
 Moderator:
Nada
Alkaraki
 Nada
Alkaraki
is
currently
an
intern
at
the
 United
Nations
University
–
International
 Leadership
Institute.
She
has
a
law
degree
from
 the
University
of
Jordan
and
a
Diploma
in
 Advanced
Legal
Studies
from
the
University
of
 Edinburgh.
She
used
to
work
as
an
assistant
 program
coordinator
at
a
local
Human
Rights
 NGO.
She
is
a
freelance
translator,
interpreter
 and
editor.
She
is
also
a
volunteer
with
INJAZ
 and
organizes
cycling
trips
around
Jordan


Dr.
Boatamo
Mosupyoe
 See
faculty
biographies


Dr.
Paul
Arthur
 See
faculty
biographies
 Dr.
Tatsushi
Arai
 See
faculty
biographies


William
W.
Monning,
Esq.


Bill
Monning
is
the
founder
of
Global
Majority.
 He
is
an
attorney
and
professor
of
International
 Negotiation
and
Conflict
Resolution
at
the
 Monterey
Institute
of
International
Studies
and
 Director
of
the
Mandell‐Gisnet
Center
for
 Conflict
Management
at
the
Monterey
College
of
 Law.
He
has
served
as
the
executive
director
of
 the
International
Physicians
for
the
Prevention
 of
Nuclear
War
and
the
Salvadoran
Medical
 Relief
Fund.
He
works
as
a
training
consultant
 with
the
Institute
for
International
Mediation
 and
Conflict
Resolution
and
the
United
Nations
 Conference
on
Trade
and
Development.
He
has
 served
as
a
negotiator
and
mediator
on
political
 prisoner
cases
in
Central
America
and
on
arms
 control
and
peace
negotiations
in
the
Middle
 East,
Latin
America,
the
former
Soviet
republics,
 Asia,
and
northern
Africa.
Monning
was
a
 Fulbright
Scholar
at
the
Universidad
de
Lima,
 Peru
in
2004
and
a
Senior
Fulbright
Scholar
 (2005).

He
is
currently
the
Democratic
Party
 Nominee
for
the
California
Assembly's
27th
 District
seat.
 Moderator:

Cameron
Hunter
 See
faculty
biographies


Panel
5:
Role
of
Civil
Society
in
 Promotion
of
Non‐violent
Conflict
 Resolution
in
Israel
and
Palestine


"Promoting
Peace
through
Dialogue”
Amman
2008



Seminar
Participants
 Esther
Aguilera


Mexico
 University
of
California
Santa
Barbara


Samar
Ahmad


Mexico/USA
 Monterey
Institute
of
International
 Studies



Jordan/USA
 Institute
of
Conflict
Analysis
and
 Resolution


Nour
Halawani


Wael
Al‐Haj


Damon
Jalili


Palestine
 Peace
Works
Foundation—One
Voice


Mo’min
Alzyoud


Jordan
 JUST
University


Australia
 University
of
Sydney


Gadi
Kenny


Palestine
 Arab
American
University


Israel
 Israel‐Palestine
Center
for
Research
 and
Information


Kaia
Benson


Mafwa
Kuvibidila


USA
 SIPA,
Columbia


USA
 Naval
Post
Graduate
School


Nicole
Cira


Toni
Mundy


USA
 Carnegie
Mellon
Heinz
School
of
 Public
Policy


Yasmin
Nabulsi


Palestine
 University
of
Bologna—Forli


Jamie
Peden


USA
 Baylor
University


Myshel
Prasad


USA
 Monterey
Institute
of
International
 Studies


Evan
Qursha


Jordan
 Liverpool
Hope
University


USA
 Monterey
Institute
of
International
 Studies


Irene
Lagan


Kim
Crawford


Alison
Lamont


USA
 Boston
University


USA
 Naval
Post
Graduate
School


Canada
 Carleton
University


Sarah
Anne
Rennick


Richard
Cullivan


David
Lettis


USA
 Naval
Post
Graduate
School


USA/Ireland
 Gregorian
University


USA
 Monterey
Institute
of
International
 Studies


Shawn
Durkin


USA
 Catholic
Charities
Archdiocese
of
 Boston


Alyssa
Galloway


Maja
Lovslett
 Norway
 Monterey
Institute
of
International
 Studies


USA
 Monterey
Institute
of
International
 Studies


Mais
Masadeh


Lindsay
Gardner


USA/South
Africa
 Barnard
College


USA
 Monterey
Institute
of
International
 Studies


Michelle
Glasser


Jordan


Lesedi
Mbatha


Darrick
Mosley


USA
 Naval
Post
Graduate
School


Kristen
Ragusin


France/USA
 Regional
Centre
on
Conflict
 Prevention,
Jordan


Nancy
Rodriguez


USA
 Monterey
Institute
of
International
 Studies


Waleed
Sadek


Egypt
 Nottingham
University


Kurt
Schulz


USA
 George
Washington
University


Jacqueline
Shoen
 USA
 Bethlehem
University


Rubayi
Srivastava
 USA


"Promoting
Peace
through
Dialogue”
Amman
2008



2008 Amman Report