---
author: TED
date: '2026-06-02'
guest: ''
layout: post.njk
source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BI3TXc1WtJ8
speaker: TED
tags:
- conflict-resolution
- principled-pragmatism
- peace-building
- political-legitimacy
title: 和平协议的缺失环节：原则性务实主义
summary: 探讨和平建设中的官僚主义弊端，指出传统和平工业过度依赖程序而非政治合法性。提出以“原则性务实主义”和“STIR”（自利、交易、认可、人性）方法论重构冲突解决进程，强调从共同的自身利益出发，而非仅靠理想化的对话来建立持久的和平。
insight: ''
draft: true
series: ''
category: geopolitics
area: geopolitics
project: []
people: []
companies_orgs:
- United Nations
- Principles for Peace Foundation
- Uniting for a Shared Future Coalition
products_models: []
media_books: []
status: evergreen
---
### 官僚化和平的困局
在我过去四十年的冲突现实生活体验中，无论是作为一名普通人，还是在联合国工作期间，我观察到一个令人不安的趋势：我们正在将“和平”过度官僚化。当前的和平行业围绕着一种熟悉的、基于**西方自由主义模型**（Western liberal model: 强调通过对话、选举、警察训练等制度手段构建和平的模式）建立，拥有一套固定的“工具箱”：和平建设者与调解人介入、推动对话与选举、进行警察培训、实施稳定化计划，并象征性地纳入草根群体、女性和青年，最后通过撰写报告来完成循环。
虽然这些工作至关重要，但我们往往将“程序”误认为是“进展”。最根本的问题在于，我们未能建立足够的政治合法性、aligned self-interest（一致的自身利益）以及公众支持，导致和平协议往往形同虚设。在冲突地区，这些未完成的政治协议和未能解决的占领问题，使得所谓的和平协议就像是一个压力锅上的盖子——表面看似平静，直到压力找到最薄弱的一点并最终爆发。
Original English Source
I have spent the last four decades
in the reality of conflict.
As a child,
as a mother and as a professional.
And I'm not the exception.
1 in 4 people today are living
the reality of conflict.
We are living in an era
where war and violence
are becoming the reflex --
the choice -- not the last resort.
What we've been witnessing with Iran
is just the most visible example,
because it’s been sending shockwaves
well beyond its borders:
in energy prices,
in trade routes disruption
and in political polarization.
And sadly, even when wars end
and when agreements are signed,
violence often returns within five years.
Over the course of my international career
with the United Nations,
I noticed something that should not
be controversial, but still is.
We have overly bureaucratized peace.
We've built an entire industry around it,
with the familiar Western liberal model
and a familiar toolbox:
bring in the peacebuilders and mediators,
launch dialogues, push for elections,
train the police,
launch stabilization programs,
add grassroots, women,
maybe sprinkle some youth
so you can tick an inclusion box,
write reports and repeat.
And don’t get me wrong,
this work is important.
But too often we mistake
process for progress.
And too often, we do not build
enough political legitimacy,
enough aligned self-interest,
enough public backing to make peace hold.
We have seen the limitations of this.
In the Middle East,
tens of millions of people are living
the unfinished business of wars,
of failed political settlements,
of occupation.
Or take Afghanistan:
20 years of vast
intervention and investment,
and the story ended
exactly where it began --
Taliban to Taliban.
So why does peace break down
when we do everything
we think we're supposed to do?
The answer I kept coming back to
was not ideology --
it was power, politics and incentives.
And for the broader public,
it was legitimacy and trust.
And legitimacy is a felt experience --
in good governance,
whether you trust your police force,
whether your children
can walk to school safely,
whether your dignity is preserved.
Without these, a peace agreement
becomes a lid on a boiling pot.
It looks calm until the pressure
finds the weakest point --
then it erupts.
### 从理想主义转向原则性务实
基于对这些失败教训的总结，我创立了 **原则和平基金会**（Principles for Peace Foundation: 致力于研究和平进程成败，并开发工具与数据支持以建立更持久和平的机构）。我意识到，在这个崇尚强权政治和交易主义的世界中，和平的抗衡手段不应是理想主义，而应是 **原则性务实主义**（Principled Pragmatism: 指带有脊梁的自身利益，即在务实基础上坚守和平底线的策略）。
特别是在我个人的成长背景中，我深刻体会到当身份由损失、暴力和受害者心态定义时，**他者化**（Othering: 将对方视为非我族类的过程）会变得习以为常，将对方非人化成为一种条件反射。我曾参与过那种被世界广泛推崇的、基于草根对话的和平项目，那些项目鼓励分享、同理心、拥抱，甚至分享鹰嘴豆泥。但我非常讨厌这种形式，因为当我回家时，现实依然严酷、复杂且不安全，对话产生的同理心根本无法改变那种被战争、占领和暴力摧毁的生活现实。在痛失友人、家园被毁之后，我意识到，如果要解决这些问题，必须将最关键的决策者带入那间“最艰难的房间”。
Original English Source
So I got fed up.
With the bureaucracy,
with the system,
with its toolbox.
And I founded Principles
for Peace Foundation
to help those in the hot seat,
to help peacemakers build
more legitimate and durable peace.
We drew on lessons
from dozens of countries
to understand what lies beneath
the success and failure
of peace processes,
and developed principles
and tools and methodologies
and data and simulations
and AI support and political
dialogue infrastructures
to help those who are trying
to make peace hold.
Because this is the challenge of our time.
How do you build peace?
How do you cultivate legitimacy
in a world where might is right again,
where power politics is back
and transactionalism is in fashion?
My answer is not by countering
power with idealism,
but with principled pragmatism.
Because principled pragmatism
is self-interest with a spine.
I recently became a proud Swiss,
but I was born and raised
a proud Palestinian.
So people often expect me
to start with victimhood,
to start with moral argument,
to start with pain.
My pain, their pain, everybody's pain.
But I learned something early
that I wish was not true.
When identities are shaped by loss,
by violence, by victimhood,
othering becomes normal.
Dehumanizing the other side
becomes reflex.
Groupthink becomes shelter,
and violence becomes currency.
Empathy for the other side
is rarely the entry point.
When I was 19,
I was invited to the kind
of dialogue program
the world loves to celebrate.
It's the perfect grassroots project.
You bring in a few young
Israelis and Palestinians.
You put them somewhere nice --
maybe in a retreat location in Europe.
You encourage them to pour
their hearts out.
You encourage sharing.
You encourage empathy. You encourage hugs.
And you bring out that hummus.
And I hated it.
Not because I do not believe in empathy --
and by the way, I love hummus.
But because when I went home,
the reality stayed hard,
complicated, unsafe,
and I couldn't do anything about it.
And a few months later,
the Second Intifada started
and those we were sharing with
were back in uniforms,
fighting in our own towns.
I lost friends.
My house was destroyed,
and I lost hope.
And for nearly two decades,
I dedicated my career to working
with people affected by conflict,
but I avoided working on my own.
It was just too painful.
Then October 7 happened,
and the war in Gaza expanded.
And I realized, if I truly
believe in my work,
I have to bring in
Israelis and Palestinians
to the hardest room in my life.
### STIR方法论：重构对话逻辑
在“最艰难的房间”里，我召集了76位以色列和巴勒斯坦的领袖，他们不是通常的和平对话者，而是安全负责人、商业领袖、投资者和政治人物。在这里，“和平”一词甚至会引来嘲笑，因此我直接点明了冲突的本质：我们是因为对各自人民的紧迫感和责任感而来，现有的现状既不能为以色列人带来安全，也不能为巴勒斯坦人带来尊严或结束占领。
我们不再纠结于国族叙事或历史纠葛，而是专注于那些不可失去的共同核心：安全、尊严和对子女的未来期许。这就是共同的自身利益，它是和平的起点，而非道德一致性。为了让这种合作运作，我引入了一套序列方法论，我称之为 **STIR**：
* **Self-Interest（自利）**：承认现状不可持续。
* **Transaction（交易）**：寻找共同基础，通过地区框架寻求政治解决方案（对巴勒斯坦人而言是结束占领与非军事化建国；对以色列人而言则是安全与区域融合）。
* **Recognition（认可）**：承认对方的存在与痛苦。
* **Humanity（人性）**：在务实基础上最终找回人性。
我们以此成立了 **共同未来联盟**（Uniting for a Shared Future Coalition: 一个由550多名以色列和巴勒斯坦领袖组成的、在战争中依然坚持推动政治解决方案的平台）。该联盟的运作证明，即使在战争激烈的时刻，只要使用正确的语法和逻辑，信任是可以建立的。
Original English Source
So that's what I did.
Come into that room with me.
It’s weeks after October 7:
The war is raging.
Loss and trauma are overwhelming.
The door closes and 76 people sit down,
carrying decades of grievances
and recent loss.
No one trusts anyone.
Not the room, not the process,
not each other, not me.
They're Israeli and Palestinian leaders,
but they're not the usual suspects.
They're security leaders,
business leaders,
investors, political figures,
journalists [and] serious operators.
And outside that room,
the public narrative
is collapsing so fast --
it's so hard, it's so polarized.
In a room like that,
if you start with the word peace,
you get laughed out of the building.
So I named the tension plainly
because anything softer
would be dishonest.
"We are here out of urgency
and responsibility for our own people.
Because the status quo neither
delivered security to the Israelis,
nor dignity nor an end to the occupation
for the Palestinians.
And we are at an inflection point.
We either break this cycle
or condemn both our people
to a perpetual state of loss,
of trauma, of insecurity of occupation."
We agreed not to dwell on our
national and historical narrative --
there is no common ground
to be found in the past.
Instead, we focused on what you
cannot afford to lose:
security,
dignity,
the future you want for your children.
Because, you see, common ground
does not begin with moral agreement --
it begins with self-interest.
Everything else comes later.
So let me tell you
what we've done differently,
because this is where the old
peacemaking toolbox often misfires.
We did not organize this
around the grassroots,
but the grasstops.
Not the convinced, but the persuadable --
people with influence on power,
on politics, on the economy.
People who know that the status quo
is not sustainable,
but they can do something about it.
And I introduced a sequence
that almost looks too simple
until you watch it work.
Self-interest, transaction,
recognition and then humanity.
I called it STIR.
And I called it STIR on purpose,
because if you do not stir the room,
you get positions sitting
next to each other forever.
You can certainly put
the chickpeas next to the tahini,
next to the lemon juice,
and not get that hummus.
Self-Interest.
The status quo is not sustainable
because it neither delivers
security to the Israelis
nor an end to the occupation
of the Palestinians.
Then you seek that common ground --
that transaction --
a political solution
within a regional framework.
For Palestinians,
that means an end to the occupation
and a non-militarized Palestinian state,
side by side with Israel.
For Israelis, that means security
and a pathway to regional integration,
rather than isolation.
Once you find that common ground,
you can build something
that is principled and pragmatic.
You can build a platform
for dialogue and for action.
That became Uniting
for a Shared Future Coalition.
That's our coalition.
And it grew and it held and it expanded.
And today it brings more than 550
Israeli and Palestinian leaders --
realists and possibilists.
What's very special about this coalition
is that we work together --
even in the midst of the war --
to push for a political solution.
In the months that followed,
we started to advocate together,
from heads of state
to briefing the UN Security Council
with a joint message.
And I saw Israelis and Palestinians
who did not see eye-to-eye
begin to speak about the future
in the same grammar.
And trust began to grow in our coalition,
in our process and in each other.
I watched Palestinians and Israelis
recognize each other's losses.
They no longer dehumanized the other.
They no longer relativized pain.
That's what STIR made possible.
### 跨越冲突的循环
我们需要清醒地认识到，现实依然残酷。无论是以色列人还是巴勒斯坦人，都深感自身存在受到威胁，而整个中东正处于十字路口。要么继续陷入无休止的对抗和各种战争的循环中，要么转向一种新的政治安全与合作框架。这种转型的前提是必须解决巴以冲突，因为它是持续推动极端主义的关键断层线。
总而言之，在当今这个崇尚交易的世界中，对抗“强权即公理”的解药不是理想主义，也不是道德说教，而是原则性务实主义。通过围绕开明的自身利益来发起“愿者联盟”（coalitions of the willing），可以切实推进和平与安全。人性是需要赚取的，而这一过程必须始于自身利益、交易、认可，并最终实现人性的回归。无论冲突在哪里肆虐，都要通过STIR框架去搅动那个房间，直到人性升腾。
Original English Source
But let me be clear.
The reality continues to be brutal.
Both people are trapped
in deep insecurity.
And Israelis and Palestinians
feel existentially threatened.
And my people, Palestinians,
continue to live
the reality of occupation,
settler violence, devastation in Gaza
and the threat of annexation
in the West Bank.
And the whole Middle East
is at a crossroads.
It either stays locked in a perpetual
state of confrontation
and different wars --
same wars, I dare say,
with different names --
or it moves into a new logic
of new political security
and cooperation framework.
And stops exporting this whole instability
to the rest, to all of us,
to the rest of us and all of us.
But I would argue
that that can only happen
if we resolve the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict,
because it's the key fault line
that continues to fuel radicalization.
So my lesson is this:
in a transactional world,
the antidote to "might is right"
is not idealism.
It is not moralizing.
It is principled pragmatism.
It is launching coalitions of the willing
around enlightened self-interest
that can advance peace and security.
If you want humanity, you have to earn it.
But start with self-interest --
self-interest, transaction, recognition
and then the return of humanity.
Wherever conflict rules,
STIR that room until humanity rises.