This book has addressed the protracted nature of conflicts that benefit from peace initiatives. Its aim was to explore the contradiction between the existence of long-term peace processes and the persistence, and sometimes increase, of violence in societies experiencing protracted conflicts. The latter are frequently defined as identity conflicts, with their core laying in a social group’s search for recognition and their prolonged struggle for basic human needs, social justice and social welfare (Azar 1990; Burton 1990). Literature about protracted social conflicts renders great importance to the positive dimension of identity building—that is, how people are identified and identify themselves—for analyzing the construction of collective interests and needs that may lead to conflict. However, further interdisciplinary and historiographically grounded research is needed on the long-term impact of its negative dimension—processes of de-identification—that, in complex competitive environments, features in not only the assertion of one’s identity but also the denial of the other’s. Moreover, even though critical scholars from Peace Studies have written extensively about the positive and negative effects of peace processes for conflict transformation (Said 2003; Stedman 2003; Kelman 2007; Darby and Mac Ginty 2008; McDowell and Braniff 2014; Tonge 2014; among others), a gap persists in extant literature regarding their long-term influence on societal identities. More specifically, it lacks studies on how protracted peace processes affect identity by reinforcing or transforming narratives, practices and discourses that correspond to a need to routinize violence and develop mechanisms, such as dehumanizing the ‘other’, to cope with the never-ending reality of conflict. This book aimed to fill in this gap by contributing to a better understanding of the root causes and dynamics of protracted conflicts and their relationship with protracted peace processes.

Against this backdrop, the purpose of this book was to analyze the impact of the Israeli-Palestinian protracted peace process on the identities in conflict. It sought to explain the processes of dehumanization and peace-less reconciliation in the Israeli and Palestinian societies by investigating the ways in which the protracted peace process and its associated policies, narratives, norms and practices have contributed toward the maintenance and/or transformation of cultural violence. This book also answered the following questions: What dimensions of identity are affected by the lingering peace process? What role is cultural violence, through processes of dehumanization, playing in the protracted nature of the conflict? And how is reconciliation incorporated into narratives and approaches regarding the conflict? To develop such tasks, it relied on a historiographic approach to draw a genealogy of the processes investigated in this research. Through a teleological reading that allowed for the expansion of the concept of peace process in this conflict, it analyzed the effects that representations made in official and public discourses about the Israeli-Palestinian peace process since 1947 have had on the levels of direct and cultural violence in said societies. It also mapped the dimensions of dehumanization and peace-less reconciliation developed throughout the policies, practices and discourses connected to the peace process, with the intention of assessing the dynamics of existing paths for positive conflict transformation.

This book was divided into two parts. Part I developed the theoretical and conceptual framework that was employed in this book to assess the relationships between identities in conflict. In an attempt to advance the debate about conflict and its transformation, while at the same time providing a framework for the analysis of dehumanization and peace-less reconciliation processes, my study first explored the foundations of identity construction in protracted conflicts (Chap. 2). Drawing from constructivist approaches to IR, it addressed the roles of time and context to the establishment of dominant narratives and intersubjective meanings that create and define identities, interests and behaviors (Lynch 2014; Fierke 2013). According to constructivists, when stabilized, these dominant narratives and intersubjective meanings create social structures that condition the actions, identities and interests of agents while, at the same time, is influenced by the very behaviors and interactions of agents. Within this framework, the re-historicization of protracted conflicts shows the need for expanding the concept of peace process, insofar as it reveals how protracted peace processes come into being not only as a material but also as a symbolic structure of conflict through time, even during their most stalled phases. Hence, this chapter aimed to provide the basis on which to analyze how discourses, narratives and practices connected to protracted peace processes, as well as their characteristics, policies and dynamics, impact the maintenance of conflict through time. As a result, my analysis suggests that violence and identity in conflicts are co-constitutive, insofar as the normalization of violence through generations directly affects the way people in such scenarios perceive themselves and, more importantly, the ‘other’. By unpacking the categories of identity and violence, as well as their manifestations in conflict, the result is a framework that allows for the operationalization of analyses, focusing on cultural violence (Galtung 1969, 1990) as the most important—although frequently referred to as invisible or symbolic—component of violence.

Along the same lines, the theoretical framework of this book adds to several existing studies about identities and conflict (Northrup 1989; Kriesberg et al. 1989; Kelman 2004; Slocum-Bradley 2008; Rumelili 2015; and others) by connecting this body of literature to scholarship on protracted social conflicts (Chap. 3). Firstly, the identification of dehumanization as an element of identity in protracted conflicts allows for a better understanding of the relationships between opposing parties and enemies. Building on many others who have dealt with the effects of dehumanization on conflict (Kelman 1973, 2017; Lang 2010; Bruneau and Kteily 2017), this approach reveals that narratives, discourses and meanings that dehumanize the ‘other’ provide coping mechanisms within societies, in order to deal with the normalization of intergenerational conflict. As a consequence, dehumanizing processes allow for the legitimization of the use of violence against the ‘other’ (Galtung 1990), fueling and perpetuating conflict, what makes it impossible to address protracted conflicts without taking seriously the effects of dehumanization on the construction of identities and further development of relationships. Secondly, it adds to existing frameworks about conflict and its transformation (Lederach 1997, 1999, 2002; Bar-Tal 2000; Bar-Siman-Tov 2004; Bar-Tal and Bennink 2004; Darby and Mac Ginty 2008; Verdeja 2009, 2013; Wallensteen 2012; among others), proposing a more comprehensive approach to reconciliation that considers its empirically observable manifestations during times of ongoing conflict as peace-less reconciliation processes. In doing so, this book contributes toward a deeper understanding of the root causes of conflicts, joining the choir of voices that emphasize the importance of historical dynamics for identity formation processes, which provide the context for some violent structures to exist—and persist—in specific situations. It also allows for an investigation of the conditions that favor change, searching within processes of de-identification for the dynamics and attributes that promote the development of constructive identities, contributing to peace-less reconciliation instead.

The consequences of this theoretical framework are manifold. Firstly, by putting into dialogue existing concepts and frameworks that are usually perceived as independent from one another, my research adds to other voices which have already identified dehumanization as a key element to identity-building analysis within protracted conflicts, emphasizing the need to re-historicize the analyses of this process. Secondly, by unpacking the dimensions of identity and violence, it provides conceptual tools for exploring the role of the ‘other’ with regard to the protracted nature of conflicts, along with its narratives, history and representations. Thirdly, it allows for the assessment of the impact of protracted peace processes on identities, contributing to more accurate evaluations of its positive and negative outcomes. Finally, with regard to the role the protracted peace process has played in light of the protracted nature of the conflict, my theoretical framework provides a means by which to draw conclusions and make connections between its policies and long-term conflict.

In the specific case of this book, the theoretical framework applied also contributed to the investigation of the impact of the Israeli-Palestinian protracted peace process on societal identities, as well as on the protractedness of the conflict. The empirical analysis developed in Part II aimed at comparing the three moments of the peace process that not only are connected to historical landmarks of the conflict, but also coincide with major transformations in the international environment, leading to great changes in policies, practices and discourses about peace and its promotion. The three phases of the protracted peace processes were identified through a historiographic analysis of the conflict and relying on constructivist theory that focuses on moments of continuity and change. These are the beginning of the UN intervention during the Cold War to the First Intifada (1947 to 1987); the Oslo Era (1990s) and the turn of the twenty-first century, which is marked by the failure to implement the negotiated agreements and the increase in violence with the Second Intifada (2001 to present).

First, and before addressing the three periods of the peace process, this genealogic analysis began by exploring the origins of dehumanization by drawing a contextual picture of the construction of Israeli and Palestinian identities since the establishment of the Zionist Movement, in the end of the nineteenth century, in light of their interconnectedness (Chap. 4). Then, it investigated the actual first period of the peace process, that coincides with the Cold War, from the UN Partition Plan in 1947 to the First Intifada of 1987 (Chap. 5). Analysis of documents, agreements, reports, official discourses and narratives from the first period of the peace process indicates that this was marked by increased levels of cultural violence within society. Initially, the very peace process simultaneously reinforced and legitimated the existence of the Jewish people as a national identity group while at the same time promoting the marginalization of the Palestinian identity, which was considered part of the greater Arabic whole. Consequently, it unintentionally corroborated the Israeli narrative of the inexistence of a Palestinian people and thereby contributed to the process of dehumanizing the ‘other’. The context of the Cold War also promoted a reactive model of peacemaking, focused on mitigating manifestations of direct violence through negotiated agreements between elites. Managing conflicts was a way to avoid the escalation of violence and, more specifically, the recurrence of war at an international level, but it gave no guarantees of pacification at a societal or national level. Therefore, these policies created distance between the peace process and the societies in conflict. While root causes of the conflict were not dealt with, resentments and the increasing feeling of injustice grew under international interventionism, thus promoting dehumanizing narratives and, therefore, conflict, in the long term, instead of minimizing it. My analysis shows that this model of promoting peace, or rather of avoiding war, at this point impacted the very protracted nature of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

The second period corresponds to the Oslo Agreement’s brief but intense era that occurred in the 1990s (Chap. 6). This period is considered a watershed in terms of not only the conflict but also international peacemaking. The end of the Cold War brought about a major shift in the policies and practices regarding interventionism and peace. For instance, a more complex framework was developed in the UN’s Agenda for Peace that included its (liberal) development and post-conflict peacebuilding. This period also brought about a great change in the current paradigm of the conflict until then, through the recognition of the Palestinian identity and the promotion of direct negotiations between the two parties involved in the conflict. As shown in Chaps. 6 and 7, through the analysis of public and official discourses during this period and the next, this change was also reflected in a permanent alteration of vocabulary regarding the conflict, impacting the narratives and relationships between the two peoples. In this sense, it was a decade marked by some sort of reconciliation, although failure to implement the accords and the detachment of society from the peace process efforts developed among political elites had deep impacts on the renewal and increase of dehumanizing narratives and processes. Moreover, the peace process has remained state-centric in essence, and the changes of policies regarding peace and its promotion were mainly directed toward post-conflict efforts.

The third phase of the peace process represents the institutionalization of its protracted nature, since the turn of the twenty-first century immediately followed the conflict’s 50th anniversaryFootnote 1 (Chap. 7). First, the contemporary phase of the peace process was developed in the aftermath of the failure of the Oslo Agreements. As my analysis shows, the dying peace process among political elites, accompanied by an astonishing lack of results although characterized by the maintenance of the idea that ‘peace is in process’, has actually been responsible for the normalization of conflict, the deepening of the status quo and an accentuated asymmetry of power between the two parties. Indeed, this is one of the characteristics of a protracted peace process, as explained in Chap. 2: the asymmetric fostering of the most powerful party to a conflict, since it promotes the continuation, normalization and even deepening of the status quo while ‘ongoing negotiations’ are taking place. By failing to involve society at large in the peace process, the failures associated with the Oslo Process have raised even more doubts, fears and feelings of insecurity that have amplified the negative reaction to its failure. The Palestinian historian and Edward Said Professor of Arab Studies at Columbia University, Rashid Khalidi, expressed this idea with great precision: “[...] while the cumbersome wheels of the ‘peace process’ never ceased to turn, these accords gravely exacerbated the deepest problems between the two sides” (Khalidi 2013: 65).

In this context, one of the findings of the analysis is that, although dehumanization processes were neither created by nor originated from the peace process, some of its policies, as well as the protracted nature it has assumed, have collaborated to exacerbate several dimensions of dehumanization.Footnote 2 These dimensions are manifested in (1) conflicting narratives about the past; (2) the denial of identity; (3) the normalization of conflict, which has led to the reinforcement of cultural violence and, therefore, (4) episodic manifestations of direct violence. Some of these were already existing dynamics that have developed within the historical relationship between the two peoples. But others, such as the denial of identity expressed by the late recognition of the Palestinian identity, were in fact actively promoted by the peace process. Its protracted nature has also contributed, if not directly then at least by omission, to the reinforcement of other dimensions of dehumanization, such as the construction of conflicting narratives about the past, due to political elites’ instrumental use of the peace process as an arena to promote the recognition and legitimization of their discourses and interests through their own representations of the process. Over time, the protracted peace process and its dynamics have also added new grievances to the already existing ones, also serving as a new arena for conflict and functioning as another feature of dispute between the parties.

For this reason, this research places protracted peace processes in the center of the cycle of protractedness. When the idea of a process gains primacy over the objective of peace, protracted peace processes might delay peace insofar as the façade of a predisposition for peace might benefit the stronger side of the conflict and contribute to the normalization of said conflict and the deepening of the status quo.Footnote 3 It makes people lose confidence in the peace process or even creates the idea that peace is not possible. As such, it might further consolidate meanings such as enmity and conflict.

As this book shows, the balance between the coexistence of peace and violence, reconciliation and dehumanization is expressed in the form of a cycle that represents the central dynamics allowing for the perpetuation of the conflict.Footnote 4 Thus, the graphic representation of a cycle is the more adequate one to portray the contradiction between the existence of a peace process and the increase of violence. On the one hand, when peace processes fail to achieve peace, they might contribute to the development of new grievances and meanings such as dehumanization affecting identity in a negative way and leading to the increase of violence. On the other hand, when peace processes contribute to the increase of violence, the cycle points that walking in the direction of peace means dealing with identity issues in a positive way, leading to peace-less reconciliation in ongoing conflicts.

By mapping the literature and policies connected to peace processes, this book concludes that they operate mainly at the level of political elites, which reinforces divisions within and between societies, since violence and identity in conflict situations are co-constitutive. In doing so, peace processes might contribute to social detachment by failing to address the role of issues such as the constant construction and reshaping of identities that lead to processes of dehumanizing the ‘other’ in scenarios of protracted conflicts. When this happens, the potential for instability and violence increases, causing a disconnection between the peace efforts that are made from the top-down perspective and the willingness for such transformations concerning the mid-range and grassroots levels of society. In other words, if the affected societies are not prepared for such peace, any effort at the top will encounter major obstacles for its implementation, as it might not be consistent with the reality on the ground, creating and perpetuating the cycle of protractedness.

However, it would be misleading to finish my analysis with these conclusions alone. As shown throughout all chapters of Part II, the protracted nature of the peace process has also been responsible for the development of parallel deeds and initiatives connected to said process, if not assumedly, at least as collateral effects. These have developed due to the need to mitigate the manifestations of the conflict, as well as to provide assistance to the affected populations over time. These have contributed, although still in minor scale, to counteracting the already mentioned dimensions of dehumanization. Part II also shows that, although reconciliation in the first phase of the peace process was restricted to providing space for political elites to meet and negotiate cease-fire agreements, from the 1990s onward, a new dynamic has emerged in the conflict. Several NGOs, CSOs and individual initiatives have flourished in the context of the Oslo Era and, notwithstanding its failure, they have even intensified in the turn of the twenty-first century. These initiatives can be connected to the peace process insofar as they are financed and encouraged by the main actors and institutions connected to said process (for instance, the EU and some of its isolated countries, the UN, the USAID and others). By acting from within and in the context of the Israeli and Palestinian societies, these initiatives have the potential to transform narratives, create shared memories and promote peace education, thus impacting the dimensions of identity that are affected by cultural violence and, therefore, counteracting dehumanization. Some contemporary projects and initiatives are explored in Chap. 7 as a way to draw lessons for peace-less reconciliation dynamics.

Finally, and taking a more normative stance, the conclusions of this book point to policies and practices regarding the Israeli-Palestinian case and other situations of protracted conflicts that emphasize the dimensions that favor reconciliation and others that reinforce dehumanization, what might contribute to the thought and practice about peace processes by way of lessons learned. This book enhances scholarship by contributing to debates dealing with the development and application of the concepts of peace, violence and reconciliation, as well as the development and incorporation of the concept of dehumanization in the framework of protracted conflicts. Consequently, it sheds light on the need to re-historicize a dimension of identity obscured and forgotten, and which is a central feature sustaining some conflicts. By investigating the deepest effects of conflict and protracted conflicts within society, it also contributes to existing efforts to understand the social dynamics that enable the perpetuation of conflict over time. Nevertheless, it still leaves some avenues for future research open. First, further research is needed to apply this framework to other cases of protracted conflicts that count on equally protracted peace processes to check the relationship between said processes and the protracted nature of conflict. Also, further research should incorporate additional characteristics and refine the concept of protracted peace process and its consequences by evaluating other cases. The incorporation of the concept of dehumanization into protracted conflict analysis should also be tested, not only on cases of international conflicts but also on other identity conflicts, as well as the coexisting dynamics between dehumanization and peace-less reconciliation. Cross-case comparison can help to clarify further the concepts and its associated dimensions and manifestations. Finally, the development of the idea of peace-less reconciliation can contribute to advancing the debate on the concept and practices of reconciliation in ongoing conflicts.