**Abstract**

The Israeli-Palestinian struggle is a classic case of intractable conflict. Establishing a long-lasting change requires a revolutionary peace process. The paper describes peace revolution as a three-dimensional process—peacemaking, peacebuilding, and peacekeeping. Each of these three components is itself a three-level process. Peacemaking means involving different societal elements (leaders, elites, and people) in the struggle to reach a negotiated peace deal by using political-elite diplomacy, public diplomacy, and people-to-people diplomacy. Peacebuilding means constructing international, bilateral, and domestic frameworks for a stable peace. Peacekeeping means building political, militaristic, and civilian devices to maintain a stable social order.

**Keywords:** intractable conflict, peacemaking, peacebuilding, peacekeeping, Israeli-Palestinian conflict

### **1. Introduction**

The Israeli-Palestinian is a classic case of intractable conflict where ordinary citizens are at the middle of the struggle. It is a lengthy fight where generation after generation is born into the reality of violence, despair, and suffering. The conflict seems to operate as a destructive evolutionary system that has a life of its own. Almost any substantial attempt to generate the conditions for a positive change in the Israeli-Palestinian case, so far, has failed and complicated the situation beyond imagination. The main argument of this essay is that a revolutionary peace process is required in order to break the evolutionary progression of violence and despair.

A revolutionary change-building program requires applying peacemaking, peacebuilding, and peacekeeping measures simultaneously.1 However, peacemaking, peacebuilding, and peacekeeping are controversial concepts that should have different interpretations in different situations. For example, following the Second World War, the UN was established as a major peacekeeping institution. The aim was to create an institution that would be able to manage, stop, and prevent clashes between armies.2 The Israeli-Palestinian case—an intractable conflict where ordinary civilians are at the center of the confrontation—is a different type of conflict. It requires the establishment of different mechanisms to build, keep, and maintain order and stability.

<sup>1</sup> Cf. Galtung [1] and Kelman [2].

<sup>2</sup> See Snow [3].


#### **Table 1.**

*Peace revolution as a three-dimensional process.*

The struggle to build a peaceful social order has to cope with different types of conflicts and crises. The three elements of a peace revolution—peacemaking, peacebuilding, and peacekeeping—should be formulated according to the logic of the situation.3 This paper suggests a multidimensional process, which might be appropriate for crises similar to the Israeli-Palestinian case. Peacemaking is a consensus-building process that involves different societal elements (leaders, political elites, and ordinary citizens) in efforts to conclude a negotiated peace deal.4 Peacebuilding means constructing international, bilateral, and domestic frameworks for a peaceful social order that copes with the needs and concerns of the conflicting parties.5 Peacekeeping suggests creating political, civilian, and militaristic means to maintain order and stability (**Table 1**).6

The structure of the paper follows the logic of the central argument—peace needs to be made, built, and kept. It is divided into sections: peacemaking, peacebuilding, and peacekeeping. Each section focuses on different aspects of the challenge of change in the Israeli-Palestinian situation. However, each of the sections concretizes that the distinction between peacemaking, peacebuilding, and peacekeeping is more of a theoretical outline that helps us to understand the complexity of the situation, shed light on the challenge of peace, and assist in developing new creative ideas.7

The paper combines theoretical research, comparative case studies, and experimental practice. It grows out of the literature on peacemaking, peacebuilding, and peacekeeping. It draws lessons from peace processes in different situations of intractable conflict, such as the struggle for change in Northern Ireland during the "troubles" and the struggle to dismantle the Apartheid system in South Africa. It offers practical insights from the Minds of Peace Experiment (MOPE)—a shortterm Israeli-Palestinian public negotiating assembly—which has been taking place in different forms, variations, and places. This multifaceted methodology intends to tackle the study of peace revolution from different points of view.

#### **2. Peacemaking**

There is an agreement among peace researchers that peacemaking means negotiating a peace contract that can put an end to a conflict. This paper suggests a

**281**

<sup>8</sup> Cf. Handelman and Chowddhury [9].

<sup>12</sup> https://www.seedsofpeace.org/about/

<sup>11</sup> https://theparentscircle.org/en/pcff-home-page-en/

*Peace Revolution as a Three-Dimensional Process: The Israeli-Palestinian Case*

**Mechanisms Description**

revolutionary peacemaking approach that attacks the challenge of reaching a negotiated contract from different angles and viewpoints. It offers a look at a peacemaking revolution as a consensus-building process, which involves key elements of the conflicting parties—leaders, elites, and people—in a multidimensional negotiating process. It is a more conclusive strategy than the dominant peacemaking experience

Top Political-elite diplomacy Peacemaking engagement between political elites Middle Public diplomacy Interactions between political elites and ordinary

Bottom People-to-people diplomacy Peacemaking engagement between ordinary people

people

A revolutionary peacemaking approach, according to this paper, is a consensusbuilding process that operates on three levels: political elite, "ordinary" people, and the interactions between the two. It suggests a three-level structure of peacemaking diplomacy: political-elite diplomacy, public diplomacy, and people-to-people

**Political-elite diplomacy** offers various channels of communication between official and unofficial elites of the opposing sides, who are interested in reaching a peaceful settlement to the conflict. In general, political-elite diplomacy comprises three main channels of interaction: track II diplomacy (unofficial dialog between elites who do not have official positions in the government), secret diplomacy (secret negotiations between officials), and track I diplomacy (formal negotiations between officials).9 Classical examples, such as the Oslo Accords of the 1990s, demonstrate that political-elite diplomacy offers efficient operative channels for helping leaders and elites reach innovative agreements in stalemate situations. Its main disadvantage is that it does not offer effective methods to involve the publics in the peacemaking efforts, prepare the people for a change, and help them deal with ongoing crises along the peace road. As a result, political-elite diplomacy is vulnerable to violent acts of spoilers, radicals, and extremists, who are determined to use aggressive means to crush any effort to reach a negotiated peace contract. Indeed, violent events made a major contribution to the collapse of the Oslo Accords of the 1990s. The cumulative effect of the ongoing violence has led to a loss of public belief in the possibility of creating a constructive change. The decrease of public support of the peacemaking gives the momentum to the opposition of the peace process, who makes sure that the conflict will continue.10 **People-to-people diplomacy** offers various modes of interaction linking the opposing sides at the grassroots level, such as different dialog groups, multinational workshops, educational projects, scientific collaborations, and partnership in peacemaking grassroots organizations. More focused on peace dialog than other collaborative projects, classical examples such as The Parents Circle-Families Forum11 and Seeds of Peace12 indicate that people-to-people diplomacy can be

<sup>9</sup> I labeled these three modes of communication "the political-elite model." See, for example, Handelman

[10] and Handelman [11]. For a further discussion, see also Agha et al. [12]. <sup>10</sup> For a further discussion, see Handelman [11] and Kelman [13, 14].

in the Middle East, which, often enough, involves only leaders and elites.8

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.90246*

*Peacemaking diplomacy in three dimensions.*

**Level of operation**

**Table 2.**

diplomacy (**Table 2**).

<sup>3</sup> Cf. Popper [4].

<sup>4</sup> See Fisher [5] and Handelman [6].

<sup>5</sup> Cf. Fisher [5].

<sup>6</sup> Cf. Handelman, ([6], 9–10). The three elements of peace revolution—peacemaking, peacebuilding, and peacekeeping—are intertwined. Moreover, often enough, it is hard to, clearly, distinguish between peacebuilding and peacekeeping. See Lakhdar, Brahimi. "Report of the Panel on United Nations Operations," United Nations document A/55/305 – S/200/809, 21 (August 2000): 5.

<sup>7</sup> Cf. Ratner [7] and James [8].

*Peace Revolution as a Three-Dimensional Process: The Israeli-Palestinian Case DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.90246*


#### **Table 2.**

*Education, Human Rights and Peace in Sustainable Development*

**Category Meaning Means**

peaceful social order

keep law, order, and stability

Peacebuilding Building a framework for a

Peacekeeping Building mechanisms to

*Peace revolution as a three-dimensional process.*

**Table 1.**

in efforts to conclude a negotiated peace deal.4

with the needs and concerns of the conflicting parties.5

The struggle to build a peaceful social order has to cope with different types of conflicts and crises. The three elements of a peace revolution—peacemaking, peacebuilding, and peacekeeping—should be formulated according to the logic of the situation.3 This paper suggests a multidimensional process, which might be appropriate for crises similar to the Israeli-Palestinian case. Peacemaking is a consensus-building process that involves different societal elements (leaders, political elites, and ordinary citizens)

Peacemaking Consensus building Diplomacy in three dimensions: political-elite

diplomacy

one of them

international, bilateral, and domestic frameworks for a peaceful social order that copes

The structure of the paper follows the logic of the central argument—peace needs

political, civilian, and militaristic means to maintain order and stability (**Table 1**).6

to be made, built, and kept. It is divided into sections: peacemaking, peacebuilding, and peacekeeping. Each section focuses on different aspects of the challenge of change in the Israeli-Palestinian situation. However, each of the sections concretizes that the distinction between peacemaking, peacebuilding, and peacekeeping is more of a theoretical outline that helps us to understand the complexity of the situation, shed light on the challenge of peace, and assist in developing new creative ideas.7 The paper combines theoretical research, comparative case studies, and experi-

mental practice. It grows out of the literature on peacemaking, peacebuilding, and peacekeeping. It draws lessons from peace processes in different situations of intractable conflict, such as the struggle for change in Northern Ireland during the "troubles" and the struggle to dismantle the Apartheid system in South Africa. It offers practical insights from the Minds of Peace Experiment (MOPE)—a shortterm Israeli-Palestinian public negotiating assembly—which has been taking place in different forms, variations, and places. This multifaceted methodology intends to

There is an agreement among peace researchers that peacemaking means negotiating a peace contract that can put an end to a conflict. This paper suggests a

<sup>6</sup> Cf. Handelman, ([6], 9–10). The three elements of peace revolution—peacemaking, peacebuilding, and peacekeeping—are intertwined. Moreover, often enough, it is hard to, clearly, distinguish between peacebuilding and peacekeeping. See Lakhdar, Brahimi. "Report of the Panel on United Nations

tackle the study of peace revolution from different points of view.

Operations," United Nations document A/55/305 – S/200/809, 21 (August 2000): 5.

Peacebuilding means constructing

diplomacy, public diplomacy, and people-to-people

International support, peaceful relationship-building between the parties and domestic reforms within each

Political, civilian, and militaristic mechanisms to cope

with tensions, disputes, and crises

Peacekeeping suggests creating

**280**

**2. Peacemaking**

<sup>3</sup> Cf. Popper [4].

<sup>5</sup> Cf. Fisher [5].

<sup>4</sup> See Fisher [5] and Handelman [6].

<sup>7</sup> Cf. Ratner [7] and James [8].

*Peacemaking diplomacy in three dimensions.*

revolutionary peacemaking approach that attacks the challenge of reaching a negotiated contract from different angles and viewpoints. It offers a look at a peacemaking revolution as a consensus-building process, which involves key elements of the conflicting parties—leaders, elites, and people—in a multidimensional negotiating process. It is a more conclusive strategy than the dominant peacemaking experience in the Middle East, which, often enough, involves only leaders and elites.8

A revolutionary peacemaking approach, according to this paper, is a consensusbuilding process that operates on three levels: political elite, "ordinary" people, and the interactions between the two. It suggests a three-level structure of peacemaking diplomacy: political-elite diplomacy, public diplomacy, and people-to-people diplomacy (**Table 2**).

**Political-elite diplomacy** offers various channels of communication between official and unofficial elites of the opposing sides, who are interested in reaching a peaceful settlement to the conflict. In general, political-elite diplomacy comprises three main channels of interaction: track II diplomacy (unofficial dialog between elites who do not have official positions in the government), secret diplomacy (secret negotiations between officials), and track I diplomacy (formal negotiations between officials).9

Classical examples, such as the Oslo Accords of the 1990s, demonstrate that political-elite diplomacy offers efficient operative channels for helping leaders and elites reach innovative agreements in stalemate situations. Its main disadvantage is that it does not offer effective methods to involve the publics in the peacemaking efforts, prepare the people for a change, and help them deal with ongoing crises along the peace road. As a result, political-elite diplomacy is vulnerable to violent acts of spoilers, radicals, and extremists, who are determined to use aggressive means to crush any effort to reach a negotiated peace contract. Indeed, violent events made a major contribution to the collapse of the Oslo Accords of the 1990s. The cumulative effect of the ongoing violence has led to a loss of public belief in the possibility of creating a constructive change. The decrease of public support of the peacemaking gives the momentum to the opposition of the peace process, who makes sure that the conflict will continue.10

**People-to-people diplomacy** offers various modes of interaction linking the opposing sides at the grassroots level, such as different dialog groups, multinational workshops, educational projects, scientific collaborations, and partnership in peacemaking grassroots organizations. More focused on peace dialog than other collaborative projects, classical examples such as The Parents Circle-Families Forum11 and Seeds of Peace12 indicate that people-to-people diplomacy can be

<sup>8</sup> Cf. Handelman and Chowddhury [9].

<sup>9</sup> I labeled these three modes of communication "the political-elite model." See, for example, Handelman [10] and Handelman [11]. For a further discussion, see also Agha et al. [12].

<sup>10</sup> For a further discussion, see Handelman [11] and Kelman [13, 14].

<sup>11</sup> https://theparentscircle.org/en/pcff-home-page-en/

<sup>12</sup> https://www.seedsofpeace.org/about/

effective in building peace coalitions, showing that there are peace supporters on both sides,13 and preparing ordinary citizens for change. The main disadvantage of people-to-people diplomacy is that it, often enough, is disconnected from the leadership level. It hardly involves political leaders in the grassroots peacemaking channels and can barely motivate and influence them to reach innovative negotiating agreements. The result is that people-to-people diplomacy, which usually does not operate on a mass scale, faces many difficulties in transferring the spirit of change to the operational political level.14

**Public diplomacy**, in our multidimensional configuration, is designed to close the gaps of the two previous diplomatic modes (political-elite and peopleto-people) by using different methods of marketing, public relations, and social protest. It operates in two opposite directions. In one direction, public diplomacy provides instruments for leaders to prepare the public for a substantial peacemaking process, get their feedback on new ideas, receive their input on the limits of possible compromises, and generate public support in negotiating groundbreaking agreements (top-down). In the other direction, public diplomacy offers tools for people to motivate political leaders to initiate a peacemaking process (bottom-up).15

This paper suggests creating a (peacemaking) public diplomacy institution—an Israeli-Palestinian Public Negotiating Congress. A public negotiating congress (PNC) is a democratic peacemaking institution that invites representatives of the conflicting people to negotiate different solutions to their conflict. All congress participants, who reflect the political spectrum in the conflicting societies, would have to commit to principles of non-violent discourse.16

The congress is built to involve the conflicting publics in the peacemaking efforts, prepare the people for change, and motivate the leaderships to reach agreements. The idea to establish an Israeli-Palestinian Public Negotiating Congress is inspired by the multiparty negotiations that enabled a revolutionary change in the struggle against Apartheid in South Africa and in Northern Ireland during the "troubles."17

In South Africa and Northern Ireland, leaders came to the conclusion that they need a public diplomacy device to involve the public in the peace process. These leaders used diplomatic interactions to create the multiparty congresses. In the Israeli-Palestinian situation, so far, leaders do not even consider creating a similar public diplomacy device. They mainly focus on political-elite diplomacy in the effort to stabilize the situation. As an alternative choice, it is worth examining the possibility that an Israeli-Palestinian Public Negotiating Congress—which can be regarded as an Israeli-Palestinian version of the multiparty negotiations in South Africa and Northern Ireland—will emerge from people-to-people interactions. One people-topeople project that is designed to reach this goal is the Minds of Peace Experiment.

The Minds of Peace Experiment (MOPE) is a short-term Israeli-Palestinian public negotiating assembly. The MOPE invites teams of Israelis and Palestinians to negotiate a peace deal, generally over a 2-day period of five sessions. The assembly is

**283**

*Peace Revolution as a Three-Dimensional Process: The Israeli-Palestinian Case*

co-moderated by Israelis and Palestinians, who lead the interaction in a framework of general rules. The dialog is open to the public and invites its participation. The Minds of Peace Experiment was conducted in various sizes and formats and in different locations. It has been demonstrated as a powerful instrument for people-to-people diplomacy. The various rounds of the MOPE indicate that the initiative is effective in involving ordinary people in the struggle for peace, preparing them for painful compromises, and creating peacemaking coalitions. However, without extensive use of public diplomacy, the influence of the MOPE is doomed to remain marginal. There is a necessity to create domestic and international pressure to institutionalize the initiative. The MOPE needs to grow, develop, and transform into a major revolutionary institution—an Israeli-Palestinian Public Negotiating

This paper suggests looking at a peacemaking revolution as a consensus-building development that involves the different societal elements—leaders, elite, and people—in the struggle for peace and stability. To reach this goal, it is necessary to create a balance between political-elite diplomacy and public diplomacy. Politicalelite diplomacy provides diplomatic channels for leaders to reach agreements. Public diplomacy intends to involve the public in the peacemaking efforts, prepare the people for a change, and motivate the leaderships to accomplish a settlement. A major public negotiating congress is a public diplomacy instrument that has the potential to create the equilibrium.19 On the one hand, it can serve as a political tool for leaders to create public support in a negotiating process that can produce a peace contract (top-down). On the other hand, it can serve as political instrument for people to influence leaders and demand that they initiate an effective peacemaking policy (bottom-up).20 Moreover, a public negotiating congress can be discovered as a revolutionary device that could invite new political groups and

The multiparty negotiations in Northern Ireland and South Africa taught us that an Israeli-Palestinian Public Negotiating Congress can be an effective peacemaking institution that could open new political opportunities and push the train of change in unimagined directions. In both cases, political leaders established the multiparty talks in order to generate public support in the peacemaking. In the Israeli-Palestinian case, political-elite diplomacy is the main peacemaking setting. There are no signs of leadership interest and motivation to establish a public diplomacy device for involving the publics in the change-making efforts. As a desperate choice, this paper suggests considering the option of a public negotiating congress growing from people-to-

The Minds of Peace Experiment is a grassroots initiative that intends to demonstrate the peacemaking potential of a major public negotiating congress, to help evaluate its possible outcomes, and to generate support for its creation. However, I did not find any example where a major public negotiating congress emerged of people-to-people

<sup>18</sup> For a further discussion, see, for example, Handelman [21, 22] and Handelman [23].

<sup>21</sup> Compare to Huntington [26], who suggests a model of sociopolitical revolution.

<sup>19</sup> Creation of a major public negotiating congress, our proposal for a public diplomacy institution, is designed to connect three components: influencing the leaderships, preparing the public for change, and utilizing the media to create a peacemaking atmosphere in these two dimensions (leadership and people). For a further discussion on the concept of public diplomacy, see Gilboa [24] and Soroka [25].

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.90246*

Congress with substantial political influence.18

**2.1 Concluding remarks**

leaders to the political arena.<sup>21</sup>

people interactions.

<sup>20</sup> For a further discussion, see Handelman [23].

<sup>13</sup> A well-known characteristic of protracted conflict is the mirror image: each side believes that the rival is not a partner for peace and is not even capable to peruse it, to say the very least. The American psychologist Urie Bronfenbrenner [15] discovered the "mirror image" during the Cold War. <sup>14</sup> Cf. Kelman [16].

<sup>15</sup> The modern version of public diplomacy was developed during the Cold War. It was defined as "direct communication with foreign peoples, with the aim of affecting their thinking and, ultimately, that of their governments" Gifford ([17], 199). This version of public diplomacy is hardly relevant to cases like the Israeli-Palestinian struggle. For a further discussion, see Handelman [18].

<sup>16</sup> For a further discussion, see Handelman [11].

<sup>17</sup> For a further discussion on conflict and peacemaking in South Africa, see Sparks [19]. For a further discussion on the peace process in Northern Ireland, see Mitchell [20].

#### *Peace Revolution as a Three-Dimensional Process: The Israeli-Palestinian Case DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.90246*

co-moderated by Israelis and Palestinians, who lead the interaction in a framework of general rules. The dialog is open to the public and invites its participation.

The Minds of Peace Experiment was conducted in various sizes and formats and in different locations. It has been demonstrated as a powerful instrument for people-to-people diplomacy. The various rounds of the MOPE indicate that the initiative is effective in involving ordinary people in the struggle for peace, preparing them for painful compromises, and creating peacemaking coalitions. However, without extensive use of public diplomacy, the influence of the MOPE is doomed to remain marginal. There is a necessity to create domestic and international pressure to institutionalize the initiative. The MOPE needs to grow, develop, and transform into a major revolutionary institution—an Israeli-Palestinian Public Negotiating Congress with substantial political influence.18

## **2.1 Concluding remarks**

*Education, Human Rights and Peace in Sustainable Development*

change to the operational political level.14

effective in building peace coalitions, showing that there are peace supporters on both sides,13 and preparing ordinary citizens for change. The main disadvantage of people-to-people diplomacy is that it, often enough, is disconnected from the leadership level. It hardly involves political leaders in the grassroots peacemaking channels and can barely motivate and influence them to reach innovative negotiating agreements. The result is that people-to-people diplomacy, which usually does not operate on a mass scale, faces many difficulties in transferring the spirit of

**Public diplomacy**, in our multidimensional configuration, is designed to close the gaps of the two previous diplomatic modes (political-elite and peopleto-people) by using different methods of marketing, public relations, and social protest. It operates in two opposite directions. In one direction, public diplomacy provides instruments for leaders to prepare the public for a substantial peacemaking process, get their feedback on new ideas, receive their input on the limits of possible compromises, and generate public support in negotiating groundbreaking agreements (top-down). In the other direction, public diplomacy offers tools for people to motivate political leaders to initiate a peacemaking process (bottom-up).15

This paper suggests creating a (peacemaking) public diplomacy institution—an

The congress is built to involve the conflicting publics in the peacemaking efforts, prepare the people for change, and motivate the leaderships to reach agreements. The idea to establish an Israeli-Palestinian Public Negotiating Congress is inspired by the multiparty negotiations that enabled a revolutionary change in the struggle against

In South Africa and Northern Ireland, leaders came to the conclusion that they need a public diplomacy device to involve the public in the peace process. These leaders used diplomatic interactions to create the multiparty congresses. In the Israeli-Palestinian situation, so far, leaders do not even consider creating a similar public diplomacy device. They mainly focus on political-elite diplomacy in the effort to stabilize the situation. As an alternative choice, it is worth examining the possibility that an Israeli-Palestinian Public Negotiating Congress—which can be regarded as an Israeli-Palestinian version of the multiparty negotiations in South Africa and Northern Ireland—will emerge from people-to-people interactions. One people-topeople project that is designed to reach this goal is the Minds of Peace Experiment. The Minds of Peace Experiment (MOPE) is a short-term Israeli-Palestinian public negotiating assembly. The MOPE invites teams of Israelis and Palestinians to negotiate a peace deal, generally over a 2-day period of five sessions. The assembly is

<sup>13</sup> A well-known characteristic of protracted conflict is the mirror image: each side believes that the rival is not a partner for peace and is not even capable to peruse it, to say the very least. The American

<sup>15</sup> The modern version of public diplomacy was developed during the Cold War. It was defined as "direct communication with foreign peoples, with the aim of affecting their thinking and, ultimately, that of their governments" Gifford ([17], 199). This version of public diplomacy is hardly relevant to cases like

<sup>17</sup> For a further discussion on conflict and peacemaking in South Africa, see Sparks [19]. For a further

psychologist Urie Bronfenbrenner [15] discovered the "mirror image" during the Cold War.

the Israeli-Palestinian struggle. For a further discussion, see Handelman [18].

discussion on the peace process in Northern Ireland, see Mitchell [20].

<sup>16</sup> For a further discussion, see Handelman [11].

Israeli-Palestinian Public Negotiating Congress. A public negotiating congress (PNC) is a democratic peacemaking institution that invites representatives of the conflicting people to negotiate different solutions to their conflict. All congress participants, who reflect the political spectrum in the conflicting societies, would

Apartheid in South Africa and in Northern Ireland during the "troubles."17

have to commit to principles of non-violent discourse.16

**282**

<sup>14</sup> Cf. Kelman [16].

This paper suggests looking at a peacemaking revolution as a consensus-building development that involves the different societal elements—leaders, elite, and people—in the struggle for peace and stability. To reach this goal, it is necessary to create a balance between political-elite diplomacy and public diplomacy. Politicalelite diplomacy provides diplomatic channels for leaders to reach agreements. Public diplomacy intends to involve the public in the peacemaking efforts, prepare the people for a change, and motivate the leaderships to accomplish a settlement. A major public negotiating congress is a public diplomacy instrument that has the potential to create the equilibrium.19 On the one hand, it can serve as a political tool for leaders to create public support in a negotiating process that can produce a peace contract (top-down). On the other hand, it can serve as political instrument for people to influence leaders and demand that they initiate an effective peacemaking policy (bottom-up).20 Moreover, a public negotiating congress can be discovered as a revolutionary device that could invite new political groups and leaders to the political arena.<sup>21</sup>

The multiparty negotiations in Northern Ireland and South Africa taught us that an Israeli-Palestinian Public Negotiating Congress can be an effective peacemaking institution that could open new political opportunities and push the train of change in unimagined directions. In both cases, political leaders established the multiparty talks in order to generate public support in the peacemaking. In the Israeli-Palestinian case, political-elite diplomacy is the main peacemaking setting. There are no signs of leadership interest and motivation to establish a public diplomacy device for involving the publics in the change-making efforts. As a desperate choice, this paper suggests considering the option of a public negotiating congress growing from people-topeople interactions.

The Minds of Peace Experiment is a grassroots initiative that intends to demonstrate the peacemaking potential of a major public negotiating congress, to help evaluate its possible outcomes, and to generate support for its creation. However, I did not find any example where a major public negotiating congress emerged of people-to-people

<sup>20</sup> For a further discussion, see Handelman [23].

<sup>18</sup> For a further discussion, see, for example, Handelman [21, 22] and Handelman [23].

<sup>19</sup> Creation of a major public negotiating congress, our proposal for a public diplomacy institution, is designed to connect three components: influencing the leaderships, preparing the public for change, and utilizing the media to create a peacemaking atmosphere in these two dimensions (leadership and people). For a further discussion on the concept of public diplomacy, see Gilboa [24] and Soroka [25].

<sup>21</sup> Compare to Huntington [26], who suggests a model of sociopolitical revolution.

activities.22 Perhaps, the Minds of Peace initiative is doomed to fail like almost all other peacemaking initiatives so far. Nevertheless, it is impossible to predict the future.23
