Speaking the unspeakable sounds of the middle east conflict

Masters of Peace

Adham Hamed

Speaking the
Unspeakable
Sounds of the Middle East Conflict


Masters of Peace


Masters of Peace is a book series edited by the University of Innsbruck’s UNESCO
Chair for Peace Studies. It has been founded to honour outstanding works of young
academics in the field of Peace and Conflict Studies. It is reserved for selected Mas­
ter theses of the Innsbruck school and published twice a year. The Innsbruck school
follows the principles of Transrational Peace Philosophy. It defines peace as a p­ lural
and regards all aspects of human nature relevant for the understanding of peace
and conflict. Its applied method is Elicitive Conflict Transformation, a pragmatic
approach to conflict rooted in Humanistic Psychology that entrusts the responsi­
bility for finding alternative options of behaviour, communication and encounter
to the conflict parties. Facilitators provide a safe frame, tools and methods for this
quest without imposing their own solutions on the parties.

Edited by:
Wolfgang Dietrich
UNESCO Chair for Peace Studies
University of Innsbruck/Austria
Editorial Board:
Josefi na Echavarría
Daniela Ingruber

Franz Jenewein
Norbert Koppensteiner
Fabian Mayr
Andreas Oberprantacher
Johney Xavier
Austria
Editorial work of current volume:
Norbert Koppensteiner, Austria

81(6&2&KDLUIRU

Peace Studies

8QLYHUVLWlW,QQVEUXFN
$XVWULD
8QLWHG1DWLRQV
(GXFDWLRQDO6FLHQWL¿FDQG
&XOWXUDO2UJDQL]DWLRQ

7ZLQQLQJ
DQG8QLYHUVLW\
1HWZRUNV


Adham Hamed

Speaking the
Unspeakable
Sounds of the Middle East Conflict

Adham Hamed
Innsbruck, Austria

ISSN  2364-463X
ISSN  2364-4648 (electronic)
Masters of Peace
ISBN 978-3-658-14208-7 (eBook)
ISBN 978-3-658-14207-0
DOI 10.1007/978-3-658-14208-7
Library of Congress Control Number: 2016939919
Springer
© Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden 2016
This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part
of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations,
recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission
or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or
dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this
publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt
from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this
book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the
authors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained
herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made.
Printed on acid-free paper
This Springer imprint is published by Springer Nature
The registered company is Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH

For my beloved sisters


Foreword

I first met Adham Hamed in a class I taught in Peace and Conflict Studies at the University of Innsbruck, Austria. What struck me first about Adham was his engaged intellect. His diverse background was also intriguing, combining an Austrian/Egyptian
background, with one foot in Christian Europe, the other in the Islamic Middle East.
His interest in Israel-Palestine was yet another curiosity. I noticed immediately that
he felt the trauma of both Palestinians and Jews. I was confronted with a compassionate intellect that could carry on the ever-difficult search for justice in our strifetorn world.
I write this foreword as a Jewish partisan who believes that justice for Palestinians
is a command of Jewish history, one that we are failing to obey. For a person of
Adham’s background to wade into the Israel-Palestine conundrum shows courage.
It is, as well, a hope for a future that I will not experience, at least on the ground,
in my lifetime. Yet in interacting with Adham and reading his words, one feels that
future arriving. For this I am grateful.
The Middle East Conflict is full of stories of trauma, pain and violence, within
the geographical context of Israel-Palestine and beyond. This is where different truth
systems meet and narratives clash. Its complexity and multi-layered quality can be
frustrating and in our analysis it can sometimes be easy to lose orientation in the
midst of this complexity. Adham Hamed has written a remarkable book that looks
upon this conflict, not from a birds-eye perspective, but systemically from within
this complexity. This book offers a valuable orientation to anyone searching to understand this complexity, which has been fueled by many rounds of war, failed diplomacy, and time and again by the violent act of uprooting people–often by those
who themselves have painful histories of collective trauma. Many books have been
written about this conflict, yet this one is unique as it is the first that applies Wolfgang Dietrich’s conflict transformation model of Elicitive Conflict Mapping to this
context. The reader will find a structured conflict analysis, in which the casual relationship between the episode of conflict and the so-called epicenter are explored
layer by layer and level by level. This work sets an example for innovative conflict
research in the 21st century and gives us orientation without falling into the trap of
simplifying complex realities.
Traveling to Israel-Palestine and Egypt in an attempt to see what conflict transformation between Jews, Palestinians and other Arabs might look like, Adham sees

VIII

Foreword

musical expression, in its diversity, as a way of communicating truths where words
and politics fail. For Adham, music carries a potential for speaking unspeakable
truths that exposes the non-territorial layers and narratives of the conflict. Through
music, a possible way forward is experienced. This is true for Israel-Palestine. It
may be true for other parts of the world as well. This nexus between the regional
context of the Middle East and peace philosophy at a meta-level makes this book a
unique contribution to the current state of the art in Peace and Conflict Studies.
Using case studies in Jerusalem and Cairo, he explores the rich and often disturbing texture of Israel-Palestine and the Middle East in general. Adham hits his stride
when thinking through and outside of the various academic models with which he
begins his study, as he discusses the state of the art in Peace and Conflict Studies.
He argues convincingly that for the most part, these models lack the depth needed
when trauma is widespread and suffering continues unabated. Due to the use of this
new and innovative model of analyzing conflict, this study is of high value for our
understanding of this region in particular, and the field of Peace and Conflict Studies
in general.
However, this study hardly hails from an academic ivory tower. During Adham’s
study, Israel invaded Gaza twice, Egypt experienced the Arab Spring then a reversion to dictatorship, and Syria imploded. While he interrogates Jews and Palestinians about their hopes and fears, Adham is aware of the larger regional collapse.
Can music or any art-form deal effectively with this devolving political and military
situation? In the end, Adham does not offer simple conclusions, but rather points towards the potential of sound as a means of conflict transformation and as a metaphor
for a non-linear understanding of conflict. He is careful not to romanticize music,
but points towards its potentials for dialogue and resistance. He suggests that understanding the qualities of harmony and dissonance might help identify new courses of
action in violent conflicts. The cyclical nature of conflict transformation is central
to Adham’s argumentation. This insight sometimes leaves the reader uncertain and
shows how conflict transformation can be tiring, as it can be easily confused with a
sense of standing still. This book encourages the reader to resist the urge to give up,

despite frustrations.
Adham wrestles with the voices he has been given and with the voices he encounters, and succeeds by also including critical self-reflection. Hence, the most
distinctive voice, the one searching at new levels, is Adham’s. He has a story to
tell from embodied experience as a resonating actor within the Middle East Conflict. The choice, therefore, to also recognize himself as a resource of knowledge
production, never self-centered but always self-critical, is valid.
Will Adham Hamed have the space, the safety and the courage to continue developing his own voice? Only time will tell. What I know and the reader will soon
encounter in these pages is that a voice important for our common future, is on its
way. May that voice be nurtured and amplified in the days ahead.
Cape Canaveral, Florida, September 2015
1

Marc H. Ellis1

Professor Marc H. Ellis is retired University Professor of Jewish Studies at Baylor University, Waco,
Texas. He is currently visiting professor of several international universities, including the University
of Innsbruck, Austria.


Contents

1

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1

2

Author’s Perspective and Primary Research Interest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

5

3

State of the Art . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

4

The Transrational Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.1 The Five Families of Peace and Primary Themes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.2 Levels of Conflict . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.3 Layers of Conflict . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

17
18
22
23

5

Elicitive Conflict Mapping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.1 The three Principles of Elicitive Conflict Transformation and the
Care of the Self . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.2 Mapping the Middle East Conflict . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.2.1 Conflict Transposition and Conflict Transformation . . . . . . .
5.2.2 My Entry Point: Clashing Narratives and Strong Truths . . . .
5.2.3 The Many Truths around Israel and Palestine . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.2.4 My truths are weak . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

27

28
34
36
39
41
45

6

Research Ethics: I Have No Morals! . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

7

Music in Conflict Transformation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
7.1 The Political Potential of Music . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
7.2 Performed and Recorded Music . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
7.3 Vernacular Music: The Potential of the Here and Now . . . . . . . . . . . .

8

Further Research Interest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

9

Case Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
9.1 Where Strong Truths Crack: The Jerusalem Youth Chorus . . . . . . . . 65
9.1.1 Mental-Societal Disturbances: Ceci n’est pas une Guitare! . . 67

53
53

55
56


X

Contents

9.1.2

Imagining and Experiencing Home on the SocialCommunal Layers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
9.1.3 Sexual Energy: An Implicit Potential for Conflict
Transformation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
9.1.4 Another Level of Dialogue: Vernacular Moments and
Spiritual Potential . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
9.1.5 Potentials, Limitations and Critique of the Jerusalem
Youth Chorus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
9.2 Songs Are The Soul’s Language: Eskenderella . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
9.2.1 Mental-Societal Potentials: Sounding the Charge for the
Egyptian Uprising Revolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
9.2.2 When Vernacular Potential Unfolds: Spirituality in the
midst of Revolutionary Dynamics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
9.2.3 Hidden Messages: The Sexual Family-Layers . . . . . . . . . . . . .
9.2.4 A Homogenous Group and Random Audiences: The
Social-Communal Layers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
9.2.5 Potentials, Limitations and Critique of Eskenderella . . . . . . .
10

70
75

76
80
82
84
87
91
92
92

Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95

List of References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103


List of Figures

4.1
4.2

The Transrational Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Levels of Conflict . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18


1

Introduction

As I am writing the introduction to this book, I am sitting in the heart of Cairo. An
hour ago, a car exploded only a hundred meters away from me. I can still feel the
vibrations of the massive blast in my chest. The wave of heat paired with the smell

of burning metal and the visual image of people running around in chaos are vivid.
The mind rationalizes and the body functions according to trained patterns in such
situations, but there are no words to describe the horror of such a sight of violence.
As I have taken time to lean back and have a strong coffee, I realize that my body is
shivering while I am trying to balance the little cup in my hand. I feel shaken. The
sound of the blast still resonates in me.
This book is about language and the limitations of language. It is about searching for words where there is seemingly nothing that can express the truths of an
experienced conflict. It is about sounds that cause resonances among, and inside of
different actors in the Middle East Conflict. Why did this car just explode in front
of me, I wonder? I do not assume that there is simple answer to this question, even
if Egypt’s media and public discourse are full of linear explanations and claims that
there is one party that is right and one that is wrong, more than four years after President Mubarak was ousted from power. This book is not explicitly about Egypt, yet
the explosion I have just experienced helps situate it in the context of a larger reality.
This reality is prevalent not only inside, but also outside of the national boundaries
of Egypt. By creating a complex chorus of truths, what happens in Egypt creates
resonances in a larger regional and global reality.
This book is an attempt to analyze this complexity, yet what I will arrive at in
the end is necessarily a simplification of reality. At the beginning of this endeavor,
I will outline who I am, as a perceiving subject in this complexity and try to make
explicit the social location from which such a simplification will take place. Therefore, in the first chapter, I will situate myself in the context of this study by building
an author’s perspective. Next, I will outline my theory, which is based on Wolfgang
Dietrich’s transrational model (Dietrich, 2013; 2015), as well as influences from
music theory. I will also define terms and concepts that are related to the Middle
East Conflict, drawing on a non-territorial understanding of the Middle East. My
method is Elicitive Conflict Mapping (ECM) and this book is the first study apply© Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden 2016
A. Hamed, Speaking the Unspeakable,
Masters of Peace, DOI 10.1007/978-3-658-14208-7_1


2

1 Introduction

ing the model to this conflict. Furthermore, I will touch upon ethical questions that
were raised at the beginning of and throughout this project, as well as in its aftermath. Finally, I will distinguish between three different forms of music, which will
provide the analytical basis for the second part in which I will explore two case studies: a Palestinian-Israeli choir–the Jerusalem Youth Chorus–and the Egyptian band
Eskenderella. These examples will highlight the applicability of ECM to one of the
longest lasting, most violent and complex modern conflicts.
The Middle East Conflict is one of the most highly and perhaps over-researched
topics in the world. Yet, I aim to provide a new lens through which to view this topic
while focusing on new, so far not at all researched, aspects of this long lasting conflict. In the current state of the art, there is no other academic work available which
brings the transrational approach into conversation with the Middle East Conflict.
This approach has been developed by Wolfgang Dietrich and provides the epistemological framework for the Innsbruck School of Peace Studies. It affords a new
lens to analyze this particular conflict, and Peace and Conflict Studies more broadly
(Dietrich, 2015; UNESCO Chair for Peace Studies, 2014a).
The transrational model offers a holistic understanding of peaces, suggesting
a pluralistic understanding of the term, which is at the core of elicitive conflict
transformation–the applied method of transrational peace philosophy. This book is
the first study working with ECM and its very specific epistemological and ontological assumptions. As a student of Wolfgang Dietrich, I have had the privilege
of reading his manuscripts and discussing my interpretations of his work in many
direct conversations. One of the main works cited is Dietrich’s third and, at the time
of research, yet unpublished volume of his Many Peaces trilogy (Dietrich, 2015),
as well as an online ECM tool (UNESCO Chair for Peace Studies, 2014a), which
was made available by the team of the UNESCO Chair for Peace Studies while I
was writing this book. Due to the lack of literature applying ECM, I have decided
to outline my interpretations of the model in more detail than would usually be the
fashion in the framework of the theoretical part of such a study. Whenever possible, I
have chosen to give reference to Dietrich’s work. Some content, however, is derived
from my notes of his lectures and from my own thoughts and noted observations,
which are a result of our conversations. While Wolfgang Dietrich is clearly credited

for the creation of this model, I claim sole responsibility for my interpretations and
applications of it. This model has provided me with a compass in all phases of my
case studies. For example, it has been particularly helpful when I have searched for
the next step in my research. When the sounds of the conflict have resonated in me
in an especially loud and dissonant way, regular reality checks using this method
have helped me to situate my self1 in the globe2 around me and within the myriad
of complexities to which this book speaks.
1

2

I here distinguish between the personal self and the transpersonal Self. The word ‘myself’ here is written in two words in order to stress the fluid border between the individual and the world surrounding
her/him. Later in this book I will define this border as being situated between the mental-societal and
the spiritual-policitary layers of conflict.
The term ‘globe’ here refers to Ruth Cohn’s four factors model (Dietrich, 2013: 85ff.), which demonstrates interesting parallels to the theory of ECM. Indeed Wolfgang Dietrich (2015) stresses that ECM
can be combined with Theme Centered Interaction and other tools of humanistic psychology. It seems


1 Introduction

3

Initially I was only interested in narratives about the Middle East Conflict. However, very early in my research I developed a curiosity for the underlying issues that
lay hidden under the episode of the conflict. In this context, digging deeper meant
a confrontation with a reality of complex relations between different actors in the
conflict, and also inquiring about those layers of conflict that are often not apparent
when focusing on the narrative alone. Personally and academically, this has been
challenging in many ways. Writing from a transrational perspective requires more
than just an intellectual understanding of what transrational peace research means. It
demands an embodied attitude that allows for simultaneous attention towards one’s

own inner faculties and the topic of research. There have been moments in which I
have lacked clarity and direction, where there was seemingly nothing left to hold on
to and where I questioned whether I should write this book at all. Yet, by applying a
transrational lens, there were also other moments in which I realized the possibility
of going beyond the postmodern condition that along the road I have found myself
in time and time again.
Counter to conventional academic structure, I have decided to split my research
interest in two separate parts. The first will be made explicit at the end of my author’s
perspective and the second frames my further research interest for my case studies
after having outlined my theory and method. This reflects my own process of research. The clarification of my theory and method has made it possible for me to
frame my research interest for the case studies, which focus on two music initiatives,
one that uses music as a means of dialogue, the other that has recognized music’s
potential as a means of resistance. Both recognize the potential of sound to help in
speaking unspeakable truths. Following Ivan Illich (1980) and an earlier work of
Dietrich (2002), I distinguish between recorded, performed and vernacular music.
The varying potentials for elicitive conflict transformation of these two case studies
are of central interest to my research. This book is entitled Speaking the Unspeakable. Though seemingly paradoxical, and certainly meriting further elaboration, I
will aim to explain the meaning throughout this study.
Looking at these two music initiatives in the context of the Middle East Conflict
from a transrational perspective, I hope to offer a new and alternative lens that might
elicit new paths and perspectives of conflict transformation. I am not trying to claim
any kind of absolute truth in my research. I rather understand this work as an offering
for anyone who is seeking and willing to engage in an open dialogue about possible
alternative courses of action in a conflict that has become extremely rigid and selfreproductive.

to me that ECM could be systemically applied not only to the persona but also to the group as a closed
system in interaction with the globe.


2 Author’s Perspective and Primary Research

Interest

Peaces and conflicts are relational, and hence in any case need a perceiving subject
to be understood and contextualized (Dietrich, 2012: 7). For the Innsbruck School
of Peace Studies, which draws on very specific ontological assumptions on which I
will elaborate in the chapter about the transrational model, it is key that an author
is critically self-aware, not only at the beginning of a study, but also throughout the
process of research. The researcher changes during the process of writing and, at
least in my case, in every sense of the word, the researcher is searching. The many
sounds of the Middle East Conflict certainly have and will change me and shape me
as a persona1 . I therefore will make my personal background explicit in this chapter
and throughout this book, which perhaps goes further than usual, in what I would
argue are rather conservative academic conventions. This is particularly important
for the empirical part of this study, in which I will directly interact, hence resonate,
with people in the midst of the Middle East Conflict.
In addition to Cairo, where I wrote my introduction, Jerusalem and Innsbruck are
the two other places, which are relevant for rooting and contextualizing my research
about the Middle East Conflict. While the first two cities listed might seem to be
logical places for such an endeavor, a small Austrian city might not seem to be too
self-evident. Yet it is precisely this city that has largely influenced me in different
phases of my personal becoming and in which I am partly rooted through family
history. My socialization in Innsbruck has shaped my perceptions, motivations and
interests in my discipline as a researcher, and hence should be taken into account
with equal priority.
Innsbruck, located in the midst of the Alps, is my mother’s hometown and also the
place where I grew up. Here, people I encountered were often not too informed about
the Middle East Conflict and if they were, the establishment of the State of Israel in
1948 was usually directly and almost exclusively associated with the Holocaust and
a feeling of inconvenience rooted in a feeling of collective guilt mixed with a culture
of constructing an image of Austria being the first ‘victim’ of Nazi Germany. I was

1

I have used this terminology in reference to the Latin verb sonare: “to resonate with intensity” (Guzman after Lederach and Lederach 2010). I will further elaborate on this concept in the chapter 5.2,
“Mapping the Middle East Conflict”.

© Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden 2016
A. Hamed, Speaking the Unspeakable,
Masters of Peace, DOI 10.1007/978-3-658-14208-7_2


6

2 Author’s Perspective and Primary Research Interest

born almost exactly 40 years after the foundation of Israel and 43 years after the end
of World War II. Yet, even in my generation I found little space for other narratives
about the conflict. Amongst my friends there were often two common arguments:
that we, as Austrians, carry a fundamental historical responsibility for the State of
Israel, and that we have no responsibility for something that happened in the distant
past. The former emphasized a historical responsibility to the State of Israel and the
idea that we carry the heavy burden for the extermination of Jewish life in Europe.
Many saw it as our obligation to protect Israel at any cost, so that Jews would never
again become the victims of Anti-Semitism. Those who rejected responsibility for
something that happened so many years ago argued that this is not a concern of our
generation any longer and that we should live our life in the present, regardless of
what has happened in the past. Finally, there were also those who relativized the
Holocaust. My largely leftist, urban upbringing, however, was rather distant from
such people and ideologies. In retrospect, reflecting upon myself critically, I have to
assume that I possibly contributed to even more polarization in Austrian society by
trying to exclude those existing realities from my life.

In my father’s hometown, Cairo, I have often had heated conversations about the
Middle East Conflict with friends and relatives. Referring to the same historical
event, I found the narratives to be very different. The painful memory and reality
related to World War II, for them, was not the Holocaust, but the establishment of
the modern State of Israel, which in Arabic is commonly known as the Nakba, which
means ‘catastrophe’. Also, there are a lot of personal traumata related to four wars
against Israel. The Egyptian nationalism surrounding the Fourth Arab-Israeli War
of 1973, that tells the story of Egyptian victory, martyrs and success, accompanied
me throughout my life, especially because one of my uncles is a veteran of that war.
He continues to recount his memories of regained dignity when he was crossing the
Suez Canal together with his comrades to raise the Egyptian flag on the Sinai that
had been occupied by Israel while mentioning little about the wounds and losses
created by the war.
There are strong links between my ancestor’s lives and the Middle East Conflict.
Since I was a small child, I have been told very different narratives about the conflict,
and people have always urged me to ‘take a stand’ and to define my own ‘truth’. This
has led to many discussions and conflicts on a very personal level with dear friends
and relatives, as well as with complete strangers in the street cafes of Cairo, with
settlers in the West Bank and with colleagues in Austria. Most of all, it has caused
me inner conflicts. My curiosity in the construction of, and the inter-dependency
between, these seemingly fundamentally different narratives, and my wish to listen
to as many of them as possible, is the reason I decided to write this book.
Because of the personal experience of regularly encountering the tension between different narratives in the Middle East Conflict, I soon realized that there are
experiences that cannot be expressed with language alone. This became particularly
evident to me when war broke out again in war-torn Gaza in November 2012. Having had countless impassioned discussions about these violent developments with
friends and colleagues from the Middle East, most of us took strong positions about
the legitimacy of what was happening, and I became aware that many of us were try-


2 Author’s Perspective and Primary Research Interest

7

ing to suppress feelings and emotions and be as rational as possible in our debates. A
friend from Gaza was feeling shaken, fearing for the lives of his loved ones. Despite
his fears, in our discussions he was trying to be as rational as possible by referring
to, and framing his arguments within, international law, which he convincingly argued Israel was violating. He stressed the huge injustice that has been committed
towards the Palestinians since the early days of Zionism.
A fellow student and Israeli soldier was basing his position on the argument that
Palestinians created a constant security threat for the State of Israel, hence that the
Israeli offensive was absolutely legitimate. He was trying to support his position
with ‘hard’ empirical evidence by providing numbers of Palestinian missiles that
have been shot into Israeli territory from Gaza, creating a threat for Israelis living in
the areas that border the Gaza strip. His fears were real.
In these discussions it became clear to me that both were right in their own way.
They were authentically communicating their own truths about the conflict. Their
arguments were based on empirical evidence, whilst their feelings and emotions,
which lay below the obvious narrative of the conflict, were hardly acknowledged.
This only happened in more intimate and informal conversations. Traditional academic environments provide very little space for deeper reflections about expressed
truths, which present themselves to the beholder of the episode of the Middle East
Conflict. As students who had been trained to analyze conflicts rationally, we had
little space to be emotional, at least when talking about international politics.
As I have lived in Cairo for nearly two years, I have experienced how the political
reality that has unfolded in the context of the Middle East Conflict and the Egyptian
revolution has had a very direct impact on me. The ‘outer’ reality of violent conflict
has been corresponding to what has been happening ‘within’ my own social network
and has sometimes also left me with inner personal struggles. I have realized how
seemingly ‘outside’ issues have a very direct impact on how I relate to myself and
to others. For example, I still vividly remember a lunchtime conversation with an
international journalist friend of mine on a hot summer day in Cairo. What was

meant to be a nice break from work soon escalated as my friend was complaining
massively about a merchant at a grocery store who had sold her a bottle of juice
above the normal price. For some reason, she did not stop complaining about that
situation. On that same day, I had found out about the arrest of an activist with
whom I had spent an entire evening discussing the political status quo in Egypt only
a few days earlier. This activist’s struggle, and her political passion had touched me,
and I felt a burning sadness about the fact that she was behind bars like tens of
thousands of other people. When my friend started complaining, I answered that it
was her fault that she agreed to the bargain and that she, as a wealthy international
journalist, should not be so dramatic about having paid a few pounds more than a
local. Our lunch ended with her leaving the table upset, and I was left feeling even
more frustrated about my personal situation in Egypt. It seemed like the conflicts
around me would not stop tackling me.
Recently, this friend and I reflected on that situation together and by doing so
it became clear to us that we both had felt tense about the violent political reality
around us. Similar situations like the one of the exploding car, with which I have


8

2 Author’s Perspective and Primary Research Interest

opened this book, had been happening around us on a regular basis during this time
period. Even though both of us had been self-reflective about the situation and aware
of the possible implications of violent conflicts on individuals, it was as though the
violent outside reality had penetrated both of us on the inside. This realization fostered a sense of resonance with one another in a way that we both perceived as
extremely dissonant. The unspeakable violence that had been happening around us
had, in a way, manifested on the episode of our personae and suddenly, the seemingly unimportant conversation about the fact that my friend had paid a few cents
more was enough to become a significant disturbance in our relationship.
French economist Jacques Attali argues that, “[f]or twenty-five centuries, Western knowledge has tried to look upon the world. It has failed to understand that the

world is not for the beholding. It is for the hearing. It is not legible, but audible” (Attali, as quoted in Lederach and Lederach, 2010: 73). Here, Attali touches on one of
my central concerns in this book: approaching conflict transformation from an angle
that allows going beyond the beholding of phenomena on the episode of a conflict.
From experiences like the one outlined above, one can assume that there are truths
about conflicts, which exist deep below the surface. These truths can be understood
as rooted somewhere beyond rationality (Dietrich, 2012). The common English saying, “I have no words” is more than just an empty platitude, and suggests that the
totality of reality sometimes cannot be expressed with modern, standardized, language alone. Given this consideration, these truths are not always reasonable to the
rational mind nor can they be expressed with words alone, hence my reference to unspeakability. In the context of the Middle East Conflict, it often seems that rational
argumentation about the conflict fails or even backfires in the sense that it evokes
even stronger beliefs about one’s own position and assumptions about the conflict.
Joe Keohane argues, “[i]f we believe something about the world, we are more likely
to passively accept as truth any information that confirms our beliefs, and actively
dismiss information that doesn’t” (Keohane, 2010: 2). I keep wondering where these
beliefs that we find expressed so strongly are rooted. Is it possible that Keohane’s
backfire effects are the expressions of resonance deep inside of us?
My curiosity about the realities that remain hidden below the surface led me to
have long conversations about the concept of resonance with my stepfather Claudio,
who is a musician. He explained that the opposite of resonance was barely thinkable: For him, in the musical sense, the definition of resonances was very clear.
Sound boxes in their physical appearance make sound possible. He gave me the
following example: “Just think about a violin! Without a sound box music is unthinkable. Resonance is the result of a sound depending on its environment. Every
room and space has a stereophonic sound” (B¨uchler, personal communication, October 20, 2012). For him, harmony and dissonance together are more than just the
sum of their parts. Both can only live together and together they can build something
more. ‘Yes and No’ are not forming a Jein2 but always either a ‘Yes, but’ or a ‘No,
but’ (B¨uchler, personal communication, October 20, 2012). It is precisely this ‘but’,
which is of interest here. Claudio defines harmony in the musical sense of the word
2

German for ‘yes and no‘ (my own translation).

2 Author’s Perspective and Primary Research Interest

9

as a coming together of sounds that does not require any further resolution. Resolution, however, is necessary to lead a dissonance into a harmony. A dissonance carries
an inherent wish for resolution. Music, on the other hand, requires both, harmony
and dissonance. For him, harmony is only possible if one finds subjective solutions
to a conflict.
I also asked Claudio about his definition of sound. He said that this is something
difficult to define:
The sound of an instrument changes depending on where and under which conditions it resonates.
You cannot hear the same sound twice. Every ear is different. Everybody hears in a different way.
Everybody understands a sound in a different way. We can never hear the same thing again as we
are constantly changing. (B¨uchler, personal communication, October 20, 2012)

There seems to be an interesting parallel between variety of possibilities of hearing
sounds, always changing people, and Wolfgang Dietrich’s transrational approach to
Peace Studies that suggests an understanding of the concept of peaces in the plural,
rather than the singular (Dietrich, 2012). In this book, I aim to explore this parallel
further, and I am therefore driven by the assumption that it might be possible to
understand the Middle East as an open space full of resonating sound boxes, which
stand as a metaphor for the many persons that are engaged in the conflict on a daily
basis.
As I will outline below, Dietrich (2015) argues that interpersonal conflicts always
find an inner correspondence, within the various actors in conflict. This suggests
that a discovery of our inner qualities as resonating sound bodies might be of central
interest for finding ways through and out of dysfunctional conflicts. This potentially
opens the possibility for recognition of our interconnectedness in a resonating web
of human relationships (Lederach 2005: 5) and hence, a unity beyond duality. A
consciousness about this interconnectedness might ultimately carry the potential to

recognize the possibility of looking beyond separateness and exclusiveness. They
show me how we are all outwardly and inwardly connected with our fellow human
beings and ultimately the entire globe, as the transrational model suggests (Dietrich
2015; UNESCO Chair for Peace Studies 2014b). This stresses the deep metaphysical
question where my self starts and where it ends and what we are in essence as human
beings. Where are the boundaries between my personal self and the universe?
Mark Hathaway and Leonardo Boff argue that,
[m]odern Western thought–of which mainstream psychology is a part–has generally restricted
the “self” to that which lies within the bounds of our skin; all that lies beyond is the “external
world.” [...] [W]e isolate ourselves more and more from the wider community of life so that we
may function as “normal individuals” in the modern world. (Hathaway and Boff, 2009: 113)

I am interested in the construct of exactly those modern boundaries between the
self and the external world. It seems as if they are a core reason for any kind of
absolute and dualistic thinking in modern conflicts that very often leads to violence
in its most destructive forms. Through the recognition of resonances on all layers
of the persona, lays a potential to experience peaces in their deeper qualities. At
times it is difficult to define and explain them with words, as they are sometimes
rooted were words are no longer sufficient to explain reality, but I have experienced
and embodied some of them. It seems as if there is no way not to resonate. The only


10

2 Author’s Perspective and Primary Research Interest

question is how open our channels of resonance are and most importantly how aware
we are of these flows.
The destructive nature of the Middle East Conflict could easily bring me to the
conclusion that I should stay out of that field. Why should I risk becoming an actor

in such a complex conflict as I am conducting my case studies, where there seems to
be nothing to win and so much to lose? Following my arguments above, the answer
to that is simple: I am already an actor. I resonate with all the actors in the field.
There is a two-way link between me, discussing the Middle East conflict with my
colleagues in what is often called an ‘ivory tower’ of academia, and what is happening in the Middle East. Phrased differently: The reality of academia and the reality
of armed conflicts correspond. They cannot be seen as separate entities but rather
as two sides of the same coin.
I have known these resonances throughout my life as I have experienced dissonances and harmonies by listening and sometimes passionately contributing to very
different narratives about the Middle East Conflict. This sometimes left me confused and time and again frustrated. At the same time, I have developed a strong
compassion and love for the diversity of the cultures and people of the Middle East.
I have hated it, I have loved it. I have resonated. Despite the complexity of the conflict, this is also a part of the world where I have experienced strong feelings of being
at home. In the Middle East, I have been willing to open myself up for resonances,
knowing that this can sometimes be very painful, as this implies looking at my own
vulnerabilities.
Based on these strong personal experiences, here I embrace the idea and metaphorically use an understanding of the Middle East as an open social space full of
resonating sound bodies which I assume could be individuals and groups alike. In
the first part of this book, which will outline my theory and method, I inquire:
How can the metaphor of the Middle East as an open space full of resonating
sound bodies be applied to peace and conflict studies theory and methodology?
How can the potential of speaking unspeakable truths be elicited in the context
of the Middle East Conflict?
I will revisit these two primary research questions and outline my further research
interest in chapter 8 entitled “Further Research Interest”, since the elaboration on the
transrational model and aspects of music theory are key to understand the basis of
my further inquiry.


3

State of the Art

Peace and Conflict Studies is a relatively young discipline that emerged only in the
second half of the 20th century, even though some of the philosophical traditions
that have influenced the discipline go back much further. Several comprehensive
volumes on the history of Peace and Conflict Studies have been written. Here, I
would like particularly to mention the classic Contemporary Conflict Resolution by
Oliver Ramsbotham, Hugh Miall and Tom Woodhouse (2011). This volume gives
a detailed overview about the debate, however it speaks from a rather Eurocentric
perspective. This reflects a concern of Peace and Conflict Studies more broadly,
as much attention has been paid to European and North-American debates, while
others have received relatively little. The Palgrave International Handbook of Peace
Studies (Dietrich et.al., 2011) therefore offers a much-needed addition to the current
state of the art by giving a comprehensive understanding about interpretations of
peace in varying cultural contexts.
Since its beginnings in the 1950s and 1960s, Peace and Conflict Research has often been a highly political discipline (Ramsbotham et.al., 2011: 42). As such, it has
often reflected, but also decisively influenced political discourses and theories. For
example, the decades of the Cold War were shaped by heated arguments between
idealist and realist schools of thought. These debates largely separated the mainly
structuralist continental European from the more systemic North-American scholars
of Peace and Conflict Studies. Kenneth Boulding (1977; 1978) and Johan Galtung
(1987) give an excellent example as representatives of this dispute. Since the fall
of the iron curtain, these schools of thought have largely prevailed in many international relations polities, despite the fact that the academic debates have moved on.
There is extensive scholarship available about both traditions, and it would not serve
the aim of this book to repeat those debates at length here.
Above, I have stated that my primary research interests are truth discourses, unspeakability, and the potential of sound functioning as a metaphor for non-linear understandings of conflict. For such an endeavor the works and theories of Wolfgang
Dietrich (2002; 2012; 2013; 2015; Dietrich and S¨utzl, 2006), John-Paul Lederach
(1995; 2005; Lederach and Lederach 2010), Norbert Koppensteiner (2009a; 2009b),
© Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden 2016
A. Hamed, Speaking the Unspeakable,
Masters of Peace, DOI 10.1007/978-3-658-14208-7_3

12

3 State of the Art

Gianni Vattimo (2006), Ivan Illich (19801 ; 2006) and Helmut Brenner (1992) provide the main theoretical framework. Of course many more authors could be mentioned here that have had an indirect impact on my thesis. Yet, from the myriad
of peace and conflict theories I have decided to situate my thesis within the field
of transrational peace philosophy, which like any theory has its own ontological
assumptions, which I will outline in the following section. This chapter therefore
focuses on the work of these authors and their contributions to the state of the art
in transrational peace philosophy and elicitive conflict transformation. Their works
will provide the basis for analyzing and interpreting the findings of my case studies
about the Jerusalem Youth Chorus and Egyptian band Eskenderella in the second
part of this book.
Transrational Peace Philosophy could not be understood without the contributions of the above-mentioned authors to the field of Peace and Conflict Studies,
but it seems necessary to also mention the impact that humanistic psychology and
Eastern knowledge have had on the emergence of the transrational model. Wolfgang
Dietrich outlines the state of the art in the first volume of his Many Peace Trilogy
(Dietrich, 2012: 10ff.). I here assume that my readers are familiar with the literature
to which Dietrich is referring. Certainly since the release of this volume, the discourse has moved on. For example, in current debates, Oliver Richmond’s notion of
a Post-Liberal Peace (Richmond, 2011) has received a considerable amount of attention. However, it seems that he is largely repeating a debate that, as much as it might
seem politically relevant today, has been completed with Francisco Mu˜noz Imperfect Peace (2006: 241ff.) and Wolfgang Dietrich’s Call for Many Peaces (Dietrich
and S¨utzl, 2006: 282ff.), yet without reference to them. I have therefore decided to
make no further reference to his work. Of political relevance is also certainly Victoria Fontan’s Decolonizing Peace approach (Fontan, 2012). While it has offered
me an interesting lens through which to analyze the Middle East Conflict, particularly with regards to analyzing insurgency movements as self-adaptive systems, I
find that even though she is drawing strongly on system theory in her approach to
Peace Studies, her writings are sometimes difficult to integrate into the transrational
model, as she focuses strongly on what I will with Dietrich (2013; 2015) define
below as the mental-societal layer of conflict. Ultimately, her approach can be helpful for depicting power asymmetries and as a tool of justifying resistance against

a colonial power. This however, is not the concern of transrational peace philosophy and elicitive conflict transformation. Fontan has been important for me in other
ways. Being a student of Wolfgang Dietrich, I did not take the philosophy of the
Innsbruck School of Peace Studies for granted, but at times questioned it fundamentally. Victoria Fontan, at that time Head of the International Peace Studies Program
at the United Nations mandated University for Peace in Costa Rica, also provided
me with a temporal academic home in an environment that was ideal for such an
endeavor. Her Decolonizing Peace approach (Fontan, 2012) offered me a valuable
1

In the field of transrational peace philosophy, Wolfgang Dietrich (2002), Martina Kaller-Dietrich
(2011) and Natalia Lozano (2012) have written extensively about the concept of the vernacular. However, none of these three theorists refer to his text Vernacular Values (1980). I have therefore decided
to use as a main references here.


3 State of the Art

13

chance to critically reflect and question my reasons for writing about the Middle
East Conflict from this specific philosophical angle, which is certainly a question
that should always be raised in the beginning of such a study. Considering my own
personal biography, I feel if not always part of, then at least bound up in the Middle
East Conflict.
Moreover, in my time ‘outside’ the Innsbruck School of Peace Studies, I have
engaged in fruitful debates with colleagues who position themselves in moral and
modern frameworks and, in rather rare exceptions, in postmodern understandings of
peaces. Through these engagements, I found myself first fundamentally questioning, and then embracing, the transrational approach and its applied consequence,
elicitive conflict transformation as a method. The very definition of transrational
methodologies is that they are non-prescriptive, and they urge the researcher to be
critically self-aware in every situation (Dietrich, 2013; 2015). If applied as more
than just a tool such as, in the sense of Marshall B. Rosenberg (2012), a life attitude

that is rooted in compassion and love, it offers new and affirming courses of action
for peace workers who, like Fontan, are concerned about the universal practices of
modern peace and development initiatives (Fontan, 2012: 42f.), or, like Ivan Illich,
fundamentally questioning the very notion of development (Illich, 2006: 173ff.).
These perspectives resonate with me, and I believe from my academic and personal
engagements in this field of study that modern peace and development thinking carries an implicit violence, which reproduces colonial dependencies.
Transrational Peace Philosophy, by letting go of modern notions of one universal
peace, merges the postmodern condition of doubt with an energetic understanding
of peace while offering an epistemology that defines knowledge as more than just
the rationally arguable (Dietrich, 2012: 210ff.). During the first decade of the 21st
century, the field of Peace and Conflict Research was still divided by this academic
dispute, desperately trying to hold on to some of the old grand narratives, and while
a third group of scholars largely engaged in deconstructing the world2 , in doubting
and in losing ground, two scholars of Peace and Conflict Studies started moving beyond that post-modern condition: John Paul Lederach and Wolfgang Dietrich. They
both acknowledge the potential of non-rational categories, such as spirituality and
intuition in conflict transformation (Dietrich, 2012; 2013; 2015; Lederach, 2005;
2010). Both also have a strong practitioner’s perspective, as peace workers, predominately in Latin America, which they integrate into their writings. Lederach (1995),
with his elicitive approach and his often cited conflict pyramid, as well as with his
rather vague call for a map of conflict, provided the ground for Dietrich to systematically develop this idea much further to what is now known as Elicitive Conflict
Mapping (ECM). Both (Lederach 2003; 2005; Dietrich, 2013; 2015) argue that the
episode of a conflict receives its energy from an epicenter, which belongs to a sphere
that can hardly be described by words alone. In reference to Ken Wilber, Dietrich
calls this sphere the transrational (Dietrich, 2012). Together with his colleagues at
the UNESCO Chair for Peace Studies in Innsbruck, he began to integrate insights
of humanistic psychology and energetic traditions of peace (Dietrich, 2012; 2013;
2

For an excellent selection of texts see Dietrich et.al. (2006).

14

3 State of the Art

2015) into his teachings. The transrational approach to peace theory proposes to
distinguish between five peace families: energetic, moral, modern, postmodern and
transrational peaces. The underlying philosophy of the latter and its applied method,
elicitive conflict transformation, has become known, and here will be referred to as,
the Innsbruck School of Peace Studies.
Transrational peaces neither reject nor claim superiority to any of the four abovementioned families in an evolutionary sense. In this regard, Dietrich clearly distances himself from Wilber (2000), who, with his notion of a linear chronosophy
of human development, ultimately falls back into a modern line of argumentation.
While Wilber represents the prescriptive human growth and new age movement,
Dietrich is making clear reference to the human potential movement, criticizing
Wilber for implicitly being a Social-Darwinist in his argumentation. (Dietrich, 2012:
61). Transrational Peace Philosophy embraces the plurality of peaces, which can be
found across the many different cultures and traditions of the field. According to
Dietrich, there is a potential to recognize peace in any given moment, as peace and
conflict are not Cartesian opposites but always integral parts of one another.
By definition, transrational peaces are non-prescriptive. In the mid-1990s, John
Paul Lederach (1995) first developed the elicitive approach, which by building on
local knowledge rather than ‘outside’ expertise assumes that the potential to transform a conflict and to recognize peace is always inherent to a given setting, thus
the conflicting actors are the experts on their conflicts. The external conflict worker
is seen as a facilitator who acts only when invited to do so and provides spaces
for the conflicting actors to discover possible courses of action towards a situation
that they perceive as more satisfying. The elicitive approach became central to the
Innsbruck School of Peace Studies, where it has been developed further, both on
a theoretical and on a practical level. Acknowledging the limitations of language
within the school’s philosophy, peaces are something we have to experience to fully
understand, as formalized language alone can hardly convey truths that are rooted
beyond the rational layers of the self.

In reference to Friedrich Nietzsche’s The Birth of Tragedy out of the Spirit of Music, Dietrich (2012: 167ff.) emphasizes the importance of twisting the Apollonian
and the Dionysian aspects of living. In reference to Nietzsche, Dietrich (2012: 167)
argues that “music stands at the origin of artistic creation”. Along with other forms
of energetic arts, music can speak as a possible vehicles for conveying Dionysian,
hence energetic, truths that have been suppressed in moral and modern cosmovision. The latter, according to Dietrich, get lost in moral, modern and postmodern
interpretations of peace. Hence, transrational peace philosophy emphasizes the importance of re-introducing and including energetic understandings of peaces into
the academic debate. This, however, does not mean ‘going back to nature’ but rather
embracing a holistic worldview. Transrational peaces twist the Apollonian, which
stands for structure and form, with the Dionysian dimensions of the Self, which
traditional academia hardly recognizes because its language is a language of art
that expresses itself beyond the world of formalized language (Dietrich, 2012: 60).
Hence, transrational peaces are a dynamic intermezzo and momentary expressions


3 State of the Art

15

of the dance of life, the dance of Apollo and Dionysus who each moment anew melt
together in new forms.
The focus on sound in this book seems helpful, since its direction offers an excellent metaphor for a non-linear understanding of conflict (Gellman, as quoted in Dietrich, 2011: 20; Lederach and Lederach, 2010: 42). From the perspective of transrational peace research, the modern and moral promises of a better future, which are
based on a linear understanding of social time and usually connected to an experienced injustice or insecurity in the past, do not seem satisfying. Transrational Peace
Studies focuses on the transformative potential of the ‘here and now’. Drawing from
system theory, humanistic psychology, tantra and yoga philosophy, ECM suggests
that conflicts are multi-directional and always find their correspondence in a social
system as a whole, similar to sound waves of a tune expanding in all directions of a
concert hall.
Also, this is an attempt to understand the Innsbruck School of Peace Studies
in the light of Wolfgang Dietrich’s earlier work Samba Samba (2002), a book that
has received relatively little attention by English-speaking scholars of Peace and

Conflict Studies. In Samba Samba, Dietrich in reference to Ivan Illich makes the
important distinction between recorded, performed and vernacular music. Reading
this book has been fascinating, as it gives insights into his work at the time when
he founded the Innsbruck School of Peace Studies. Particularly his elaborations on
vernacular music, which is always an expression of the moment, is a concept that
has remained of large importance for his teaching till today, and it is an important
concept in his Many Peaces Series. In her book, Playing Music, Performing Resistance: The Dynamics of Resistance through Music in the Colombian South Pacific
Coast, Natalia Lozano (2012) is making this bridge already. By using case studies
from Latin America, she is referring to a different cultural context. I believe that my
work compliments her study well, as I am drawing on German primary literature
of Dietrich’s earlier work from the perspective of ECM and connecting it to John
Paul and Angela Jill Lederach’s groundbreaking work When Blood and Bones Cry
Out: Journeys through the Soundscape of Healing and Reconciliation (Lederach and
Lederach, 2010). Lederach and Lederach ask how one can speak unspeakable truths
which is not only a guiding question for this study but a question I believe to be at
the heart of the transrational peace philosophy. The works of John Paul Lederach
and Wolfgang Dietrich represent the current state of the art in the discipline. Certainly, both are going to the limits of traditional academia by daring to inquire about
the borders of what we can rationally grasp. I have outlined in my introduction and
author’s perspective how the driving energy of the Middle East defies rationality,
and with this basis, I feel as though I can relate to both theorists and will be in good
companionship with their work.
The conflict analyzed in this study is the Middle East Conflict. Thousands of
books have been filled, providing often very different narratives on this topic. Naming only the ones with the most significant influence and reach would be nearly impossible. In addition to the work of Edward Said (1969; 1979; 1995), Munir Fasheh
(2011) and Marc Ellis (2000; 2011; 2014), Israeli historians Illan Pappe (2006) and
Tom Segev (2007; 2008), have been particularly helpful in terms of developing an