The Haifa Format public initiative emerged at the end of 2017 as a tool for public diplomacy.
There are many Israelis in Haifa who come from Russia, Ukraine, and the regions of Lugansk and Donetsk, all of whom have been affected in one way or another by the events that began in December 2013. These events led to armed clashes, mass emigration, and a humanitarian catastrophe in eastern Ukraine.
Activists from these groups, many of whom were members of Dor Moriah, initiated the creation of the Haifa Format as a public peacemaking platform in September 2017.
The following theses were discussed at the meeting:
– How can Israeli citizens, who understand that official political instruments of peacemaking are ineffective, contribute to the peace process inside and outside Israel?
– Considering that Ukraine and Russia will always remain neighbors, what steps can politicians and society take to ensure human development for the citizens of these countries?
– The focus of the political leadership of the countries and territories involved in the conflict, as well as of those countries involved in peacemaking (such as through the Minsk format), tends to be more on economic, political, and electoral interests than on human development and the personal security of ordinary citizens.
In August 2019, before the visit of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to Ukraine to meet President Vladimir Zelensky, members of the initiative group prepared letters addressed to B. Netanyahu and V. Zelensky.
In particular, the letter stated:
“A large number of Israelis, former citizens of Ukraine and the Russian Federation, live in Israel, while their relatives and friends remain in their countries of origin. The conflict in eastern Ukraine, ongoing for five years, has caused hatred and discord to penetrate human relations on an interstate level, leading to conflicts and social tensions.
The Minsk format and the mediation of various countries in organizing the peace process did not lead to the expected results. The conflict continues with no prospect of resolution. It is necessary to involve new actors whose opinions are respected by all parties to the conflict and whose experience as strong negotiators could allow for a breakthrough in the peace process in eastern Ukraine.”
B. Netanyahu was also asked: “…to raise the issue of Israeli participation in the peace process and the possibility of moving the negotiations to Israeli territory.”
The letter proposed that Israel become a platform for public diplomacy and a peace settlement within the framework of the Haifa Format.
Neither B. Netanyahu nor V. Zelensky responded to the appeal, confirming the initial hypotheses about the underlying problems delaying the peaceful resolution of the conflict in eastern Ukraine.
Problem Description
The main issue with resolving various protracted conflicts, whether the Palestinian-Israeli conflict or the conflict in eastern Ukraine, is the large number of stakeholders who benefit from their continuation—both among the elites of the conflicting territories and among the international structures involved in peacemaking.
At the same time, the interests of the population suffering from these conflicts are largely ignored by the leaders of the conflicting parties. Their primary motivations are personal political and economic gains.
As a result, conflict resolution is left in the hands of those who make careers and profit from the conflict, while those who suffer from it have no leverage or tools to influence the situation.
One can recall the “success” of both the Minsk and Normandy formats in eastern Ukraine, and the “effectiveness” of the Oslo Accords and Camp David in the Palestinian-Israeli peace process.
The beneficiaries of these conflicts fuel political and military hysteria in their countries, dehumanizing the people on opposing sides. By doing so, they destroy any hope for peace and prosperity in these territories.
It is crucial to distinguish between “resolution” and “settlement” of a conflict. “Settlement” usually involves forceful measures to resolve a conflict, which are short-term and often merely a pause for conflicting parties to rebuild their strength and continue asserting their interests.
The resolution of interstate conflicts requires political agreements made by leaders with the necessary power, resources, and authority to compel the conflicting parties to reach a deal. However, such settlements are often temporary.
In contrast, conflict resolution involves creative solutions achieved through long-term analysis of the underlying issues, the needs of the countries involved, and the work of third parties outside the power structures.
This is why people’s diplomacy, the use of online resources, and the creation of peaceful ideologies, such as the ideology of human development, have become vital tools in the fight for personal security and human dignity, which are trampled in conflict situations.
Model Description
The Haifa Format (HF) is a forum for discussing the peace process in eastern Ukraine and the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. The platform was established by scientists, journalists, opinion leaders, and NGO activists from various countries who share the vision of human development for all.
HF operates as an analytical, advocacy, and lobbying network, implementing the following areas of work:
1. Preparing analytical papers to support the core hypotheses and provide a scientific basis for the proposed models of post-conflict existence;
2. Developing lobbying and advocacy projects aimed at influencing political decisions and electoral processes;
3. Conducting informational campaigns to support policies for resolving protracted conflicts according to the models developed.
Description of Activities
The implementation of the Haifa Format requires thorough analytical preparation to launch advocacy and lobbying processes in various countries and to draft the necessary documents.
The activities are divided into two phases:
1. Analytical and organizational phase
2. Advocacy and lobbying phase
The outcome of the analytical and organizational phase will be an analytical document that outlines the logic behind the Haifa Format’s approach. This analysis will include the following sections:
1. Justification of the basic assumptions:
– The low efficiency of state institutions in the processes of conflict settlement and resolution (such as the Minsk format, Middle East Quartet, etc.). [1]
– The development of alternative mechanisms of “people-to-people diplomacy” to enhance the effectiveness of peacemaking efforts. [2]
– Influencing political decision-making and implementation through public lobbying and advocacy.
2. Theoretical and methodological foundation of the Haifa Format as a peacemaking tool:
Socio-political realities: Factors influencing the relevance of the Haifa Format include:
a. The significant number of stakeholders benefiting from maintaining the status quo in existing conflicts, such as the Arab-Israeli and Russian-Ukrainian conflicts (China, Turkey, Russia, the EU, the United States, Britain, Iran, Sunni monarchies, etc.). These diverse interests make it difficult to find common ground, leading to imitative practices of conflict resolution.
b. Increasing political instability and economic problems in the participating countries (Israel, Palestine, Russia, Ukraine), which could push the issues raised within the Haifa Format to the periphery of the socio-political agenda.
c. The presence of a large number of expert and public organizations that monopolize the discourse on conflicts and international peacekeeping institutions, leading to risks of opposition to the Haifa Format, especially through negative media coverage of the project.
d. Interreligious issues (Jewish-Islamic and Orthodox-Catholic interaction) could increase the risk of escalating interreligious tensions.
Conceptual approaches to organizing the Haifa Format’s activities:
– Ensuring quality of life in conflict zones as the primary goal of the peacemaking process.
– Shifting the focus of conflict resolution from ensuring state security to ensuring personal security.
– Treating the individual as a central subject of state security, with citizens’ personal responsibility as a crucial factor in resolving issues in conflict areas.
– “People-to-people diplomacy” as a mechanism to promote human development in conflict zones, making it the key task of peacemaking efforts.
– Analyzing past efforts to resolve the Arab-Israeli and Russian-Ukrainian conflicts and the potential role of “people-to-people diplomacy” in these efforts.
– Drawing on lessons learned from previous public diplomacy efforts aimed at resolving conflicts in these regions.
3. Study of the organizational potential of public diplomacy:
– Assessing the potential of public diplomacy in addressing the problems of the Russian-Ukrainian and Palestinian-Israeli conflicts. This includes involving people outside of politics and organizations focused on these issues.
– Analyzing the tools available to public diplomacy for influencing conflict resolution, both within and outside of politics.
The advocacy and lobbying phase will focus on the political implementation of the solutions developed during the analytical phase. Networking tools, supported by lobbying and international pressure, will help influence political decision-making effectively.
State structures do not prioritize the survival and human development of the inhabitants in conflict zones within the framework of conflict resolution. Their primary goal is to ensure the bureaucratic control of disputed territories by central authorities or international bodies. This approach typically disregards the interests and needs of the population living in those territories.
When developing peacebuilding initiatives and evaluating their effectiveness, the focus should be on the personal security and human development of the population, rather than a formal political settlement. This approach must apply regardless of the population’s ethnic, religious, linguistic, or other affiliations.
The result of the advocacy and lobbying phase is the political implementation of the solutions developed during the first phase. Networking tools make it possible to influence political decision-making quite effectively, especially if supported by lobbyism and international pressure.
Conclusion
The Haifa Format offers a platform for public diplomacy aimed at resolving protracted conflicts such as the Palestinian-Israeli and Russian-Ukrainian conflicts. By focusing on human development and people-to-people diplomacy, the Haifa Format proposes a new approach to conflict resolution that moves beyond traditional state-centric methods. The initiative emphasizes the importance of public lobbying, advocacy, and the creation of ideologies focused on personal security and dignity in conflict zones.
While the initial efforts to engage key political actors, such as Netanyahu and Zelensky, did not result in direct responses, the process highlighted the challenges in addressing conflicts where multiple parties benefit from maintaining the status quo. Nevertheless, the Haifa Format continues to push forward with its mission of promoting peace through grassroots diplomacy and public engagement.
[1] state structures do not seek, within the framework of conflict resolution, to ensure the survival and human development of the inhabitants of the territories where the conflict is taking place. Their main task is to ensure the bureaucratic subordination of disputed territories to central authorities or international interstate structures. This usually happens without taking into account the interests of the population living in the conflict territories.
[2] When developing peacebuilding initiatives and their effectiveness criteria, focus not on a formal political settlement, but on the personal security and human development of the population of the territories, regardless of their ethnic, religious, linguistic or other affiliations.
