The book begins by observing that conflict is a pervasive and growing problem in homes, workplaces, and nations. While leaders and individuals recognize the need to manage conflict better, there is widespread confusion about how to do so effectively. The Arbinger Institute argues that this is because people in conflict often work against their own goals. They believe they want solutions, but what they truly want is for the other party to change.

The central premise of The Anatomy of Peace is that conflicts at all levels—personal, professional, and global—share a single root cause. The book aims to expose this cause, show how people unwittingly perpetuate their own problems, and provide a path toward lasting resolutions. The ideas are presented through a fictional narrative centered on Camp Moriah, the setting where the story unfolds. The story takes readers back in time to follow Lou and Carol Herbert, characters from The Arbinger Institute’s previous book, Leadership and Self-Deception (2000), as they’re taught by the camp’s founders: Yusuf al-Falah, an Arab, and Avi Rozen, a Jew, each of whom lost his father amid the conflict involving their peoples. By illustrating how the characters resolve their struggles, the book offers a framework for readers to find peace in their own lives.

The story opens in the parking lot of Camp Moriah, a wilderness program for troubled youth in Arizona. Lou Herbert, a corporate executive, and his wife, Carol Herbert, have brought their 18-year-old son, Cory. Cory had previously spent a year in prison for a drug conviction and was recently arrested again for stealing prescription painkillers; he has been sent to the camp by court order. Lou, who dislikes seeking help for family matters, watches as another teenager, Jenny, becomes extremely distressed and refuses to attend the program.

The Herberts meet Yusuf al-Falah, an Arab educator from Jerusalem who has been helping arrange Cory’s placement at Camp Moriah. Years earlier, Yusuf led a 40-day survival program attended by Avi Rozen, a young Israeli whose father had died in the Yom Kippur War. During the program, Yusuf and Avi developed a mutual respect despite the differences in their beliefs and the conflict dividing their peoples. Lou is inwardly cynical about their story and doubts the harmonious image presented of their relationship. Yusuf greets the family with warmth and empathy, and Cory responds with less hostility. Meanwhile, Jenny runs across the street and refuses to move, and Yusuf calmly approaches her.

As the parents are led inside for their required two-day stay, they’re met by Yusuf’s partner, Avi. While Carol tearfully waves goodbye to Cory, Lou’s thoughts are fixed on his purpose for being there: to learn how the camp is going to fix his son.

Inside, Lou and Carol join a small group of other parents, including Jenny’s worried parents, Teri and Carl; an Englishwoman named Elizabeth Wingfield; Gwyn and Pettis Murray from Dallas, Texas; and Miguel and Ria Lopez from Oregon. The session begins with Avi stating that his primary concern isn’t the children but the parents. Lou, a hardened former Marine sergeant, challenges this, insisting that his son is the problem that needs to be fixed.

Avi points out that Lou has already tried to change Cory without succeeding so far and explains that any progress Cory makes at Camp Moriah may not last if he returns to the same family environment. Yusuf then joins the group and introduces a diagram called the “Influence Pyramid.” He explains that the pyramid devotes a much larger area to “[h]elping things go right” than to “[d]ealing with things that are going wrong” (22). Most people, Yusuf argues, mistakenly focus their energy on correcting others, even though correction alone rarely solves interpersonal problems. To truly invite change in another person, one must first focus more on helping things go right by building relationships, listening, teaching, and helping others.

Yusuf applies this principle to Jenny, who is still refusing to join the wilderness program. Because Camp Moriah won’t force children to enroll, he explains that the camp faces the same challenge found in families, workplaces, and between countries: Other people are autonomous and don’t always behave as one wishes. He tells the group that they therefore need to become better at the “deeper matters” of helping things go right. Yusuf prepares to illustrate the “deepest matter of all” through an event that occurred about 900 years earlier in the region where he and Avi come from (19).

Yusuf illustrates the deepest component of “helping things go right” with a historical lesson (28). He contrasts two conquests of Jerusalem: the Crusaders’ siege in 1099 and the recapture by the Muslim sultan Saladin in 1187. The Crusaders brutally massacred much of the city’s Muslim population and killed Jewish inhabitants who had sought refuge in a synagogue. Yusuf also explains the competing historical claims to Jerusalem, while the group acknowledges atrocities committed by different sides and rejects generalizing about entire populations based on such violence. In contrast, Yusuf describes Saladin as being renowned for kindness toward allies and enemies, which he illustrates with stories of Saladin helping an enemy woman find her stolen child and generously allowing his opponent, Balian of Ibelin, to lead Jerusalem’s defense while ensuring that Balian’s wife was escorted to safety. When Saladin retook Jerusalem, he forbade his troops from harming Christians or plundering their possessions and protected Christian holy sites.

Lou, drawing on his experience in the Vietnam War, dismisses Saladin’s actions as weakness that would get soldiers killed. Pettis then reveals that he’s a Vietnam veteran. Yusuf counters Lou’s point by arguing that Saladin was the most successful military and political leader of his era. Yusuf argues that what distinguished Saladin was that his heart was at peace. He concludes by telling Lou that this same principle—the state of one’s heart—is central to the intervention with Cory and will also affect Lou’s ability to navigate the problems at his company, Zagrum.

Avi elaborates on the concept of “a heart being at peace” (30). He explains that the important difference between the initial crusading forces and Saladin was how they viewed their enemies: The crusading forces saw them as objects to be exterminated, while Saladin saw them as people. Avi presents this concept in the “Way-of-Being Diagram,” which shows that beneath every outward behavior lies a “way of being” determined by how one sees and regards others (32). Avi connects this idea to the work of Jewish philosopher Martin Buber, who distinguished between seeing others as objects (“I-It”) and seeing them as people (“I-Thou”). Avi calls these ways of being “heart at war” and “heart at peace” (34).

Lou argues that considering an enemy’s humanity during combat could cause a soldier to hesitate, while Pettis agrees that this concern seems legitimate. Avi challenges this, explaining that the same outward behavior can come from either way of being and telling Lou that Cory cares whether his father sees him as a person or an object. He gives three reasons that way of being matters: A heart at peace provides the best opportunity for clear-minded decisions, makes it possible to understand others’ perspectives to find solutions, and acknowledges that people respond more to our underlying way of being than to our specific actions. Lou is prompted to reconsider both the departure of five executives from his company and a recent argument in which Cory accused him of being ashamed of him—an accusation that Lou privately recognizes as true. 

Avi explains that children may respond as though they’re being attacked even when they’re treated fairly if their parents’ hearts are at war toward them. Avi concludes that many serious problems at home, at work, and in the world are failures of being rather than failures of strategy: A heart at war clouds judgment, prevents people from adequately considering others’ positions, and can provoke the very hurtful behavior they oppose.

Avi explains that when people have hearts at war, they can actively contribute to the problems they oppose. To illustrate this, he shares a personal story of arguing with his wife, Hannah, over edging the lawn. His initial resistance and his increasingly negative view of Hannah contributed to a negative cycle. Even when Avi complied, he did so with a heart at war, angrily edging in the dark while regarding the difficulties he encountered as evidence of her unreasonableness. His resentful behavior affected their interactions without changing how negatively he regarded her.

The story prompts a tense exchange among the other parents. Miguel says that the story reminds him of arguments with his wife, Ria. Carol and Gwyn push back against the husbands’ perspectives. Avi uses the “Collusion Diagram” to map his conflict with Hannah. The diagram illustrates a reciprocal cycle: How Avi sees Hannah influences his behavior toward her, which can influence how she sees and responds to him, reinforcing his original view of her. Avi calls this pattern “collusion,” defining it as “a conflict where the parties are inviting the very things they’re fighting against” (51). In collusion, each person actively provokes the behavior in the other that they claim to hate, creating a recurring pattern of mutual provocation. Avi explains that this pattern can occur between spouses, parents and children, coworkers, and countries and points out that the group itself has begun reproducing it. He ends by warning that collusion can spread through people’s lives, organizations, and countries.

Avi explains that collusion spreads because people with hearts at war seek allies to validate their feelings of being wronged. He expands the Collusion Diagram to show how individuals in the room were already inclined to gather with people who might reinforce their accusing views of others. Avi describes how he recruited his children into his conflict with Hannah, while Lou recognizes that he similarly complains about Cory to other family members. This dynamic, he notes, is common in workplaces, where organizations can become divided into warring silos, and in global conflicts.

Elizabeth connects the concept to the conflict in Northern Ireland. Avi then applies it to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, using differing religious traditions concerning Abraham’s sons, Isaac and Ishmael, to illustrate how disputes involving heritage and claims to land can follow the pattern of collusion. He explains that believers on opposing sides can provoke the very mistreatment from each other that they oppose.

Yusuf rejoins the group as Lou challenges the premise, asking whether the concept of collusion implies that all parties are equally wrong even when one side’s claims may be false. When Yusuf asks which claims Lou considers false, Lou initially identifies Yusuf’s before admitting that he doesn’t know Yusuf’s individual views and instead attributes certain views to Arabs generally. Yusuf uses this assumption to explain the tendency in such conflicts to demonize others by reducing them to broad, lifeless categories, turning unknown individuals into objects and potential enemies. Lou then accuses Yusuf of avoiding his original question and insists that he answer it. Yusuf agrees.

Lou continues to insist that it matters whether one side in a conflict is right and the other is wrong. Yusuf agrees but clarifies that conflicts are never solved as long as all parties are convinced of their own rightness. A solution only becomes possible when at least one person considers how they might be wrong. Yusuf distinguishes between being right in one’s actions or positions and being mistaken in one’s way of being. A person can be right on the surface while still being wrong in the deeper way they regard others, with a heart at war that makes lasting solutions difficult.

Yusuf’s question about whether Lou has ever been wrong while someone still saw him as a person triggers a memory. He recalls being 16 and accidentally letting his father’s new car roll into the Hudson River. Expecting rage, Lou was met with his father’s calm response: “Well, I guess you’ll have to take the truck then” (64). Lou realizes that his father’s heart was at peace. Carol then shares her own story about her past struggle with bulimia. When she confessed her secret to Lou, his concern was immediate, and he supported her through her subsequent setbacks by listening and comforting her. Carol explains that amid this support, her compulsion eventually left her.

Carol’s story changes Gwyn’s and Elizabeth’s impressions of Lou, demonstrating how seeing someone as a person changes the dynamic. Yusuf concludes that to end external conflict, one must first end the war within. As the group breaks for lunch, Yusuf challenges them to see everyone they encounter as a person. He then informs Jenny’s worried parents that their daughter is running.