{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.028531663187195546, 'fraction_numerical': 0.007306889352818371, 'mean_word_length': 5.130063965884862, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Israel on the Road to Peace: Accepting the Unacceptable, by Ziva Flamhaft. 252 pages, appendix, bibliography, index. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1996. $17.00 (Paper) ISBN 0-8133-2774-1

Azar, a new body of conflict resolution methods evolved by which contending groups can understand their situation and move toward creating the kind of relationships that they want. Designed to address deeply-rooted or identity-based conflicts, ICR has been applied to most hot spots, including the Middle East, Northern Ireland, Cyprus, Sri Lanka, South Africa, and the former Soviet Union. Despite the impressive breadth and scope of ICR, critics argue that ICR sessions provide little or no benefit, as the conflicts have proceeded apace and there is little evidence that interim peace efforts are based on their work. While this critique is understandable, it adopts a narrow view of success based on the concrete outcomes of specific interventions. ICR, on the other hand, is about establishing a process and a mindset whereby bitter adversaries find ways to think jointly about their conflicts and launch a process that may eventually legitimize formal interest-based bargaining and negotiated settlement. One of its most important contributions, and Fisher's own contribution to it, has been an understanding of the contingent nature of conflict types and intervention strategies. As the conflict resolution field matures it is challenged to articulate rigorously conflict types, stages, and intensities, and match them with different types of conflict intervention philosophies and strategies. As Fisher points out, for the most part ICR is about preparatory work, for example when disputants are so deeply divided that they often view recognition of the other side as delegitimizing their own side. Recall the not too distant past in South Africa, Northern Ireland, and the Middle East, when the state actors refused to deal with terrorist thugs but then either turned over power to them (the African National Congress) or, on a more limited basis, shared some power with them (the IRA/Sinn Fein and the Palestine Liberation Organization) as peace was haltingly pursued. That peace has not yet arrived in the latter two cases is not a measure of the failure of ICR, but may rather reflect the fact that the shift from small-scale and often secret ICR encounters (e.g., in Oslo) to formal diplomacy and power politics has not been smooth or effective. Instead, a better sequencing and coordination must be developed among ICR (to legitimize dialogue and generate creative breakthroughs), interest-based bargaining (to move from abstract formulas to practical and political details), and finally formal negotiation (for implementation and consolidation). This requires that ICR be well studied and understood. Interactive Conflict Resolution makes a major contribution to that end.