Is Negotiation Still the Solution in the Middle East?
After the death of Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, a prominent Hamas leader, on March 22nd, (aged about 66) at the hand of the Israel military and the resultant further escalation of violence, one can rightfully pose the question: “Does negotiation still provide any solution in this crisis”?
The Power of ‘Weakness’
“Death threats do not frighten us, we are in search of martyrdom,” declared Sheikh Ahmed Yassin a couple of months ago after Israel’s deputy defense minister had named him “marked for death”. On Monday, he was killed by missiles fired from Israeli helicopters as he emerged in his wheelchair from dawn prayers in Gaza City. This frail, half-blind, quadriplegic, man of God, had inspired many young Palestinians to strap explosives to their bodies, and commit a religious suicide, taking with them as many Israelis as they could. In the name of that martyrdom.
Suicide bombs, Sheikh Yassin would have argued, are the weapons of the weak; the Palestinians’ counter to Israel’s tanks.
Is this the Point of Realization?
One thing is certain; the violence has escalated to a point where few of us will even notice a speck of light in the tunnel. Yet, this is often the point where solutions could be at their nearest.
Admittedly, any solution would depend on the vision and ability to make bold moves from both sides. We have seen it happen in South Africa. We know that there is a price to a negotiated solution. Just like in South Africa the price lies in drastic changes in attitude, in concessions you never thought possible, in acceptance of neighbours you didn’t like before, in having less power, in knowing others, although different and less privileged, having the same legal rights and in accepting that others religious and political opinions may be different to yours.
The price of war, though, is significantly more and will surely last longer. It will be paid in many more lives on both sides, in feelings of revenge for generations to come, in floods of tears and in economic destruction and even more distrust and hate.
The vision and willingness to negotiate with commitment and dedication will require, in practice, at least Five basic steps:
1. Expressing the willingness.
2. Put processes together informally or formally that will make negotiation and the conditions thereof a reality and stick to your word (trust).
3. Explore and search and search again for common ground!
4. Put your differences (regardless of their emotionality and regardless of violent and painful attempts to derail the process) aside initially.
5. Try to involve the most extreme. Especially in ‘joint' problem solving sessions, if possible.
Trade-offs
Looking at the problems of the Middle East at a distance, is of course an easy and naive science, but let us, just for an academic exercise, look at the various levers and concessions that exist. And these are powerful tools that could bring about significant reciprocity if used correctly. Superficially, for example:
1. Israel can concede on the 70km wall, The Palestinians can concede on suicide bombings.
2. Israel has money and access to more from the USA. The Palestinians have poverty and unemployment.
3. Israel has military power, but low moral ground, The Palestinians has less power but high moral ground.
4. Israel have occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, the Palestinians will possibly view serious concessions there as important.
Some signs of Hope?
Sill, the Sheikh’s killing must not obscure the negotiated solution as a prospect (which most Israelis and Palestinians surely accept in principle). If only enough of them could agree on how to make it a reality.
Yet whatever the moral and short-term tactical justification for the assassination, it was unwise. Let’s hope the leaders will realize: We have reached a point of parity. There is only one way left; either negotiate or pay the price of even worse consequences world wide.
Biography
Professor Manie Spoelstra has published numerous articles and books on negotiation, general management, strategy formulation and participative management, and has often consulted to many leading companies on these topics. By regularly attending advanced seminars at institutions such as the Harvard Center for Management Research in Boston and the Stanford Business School in San Francisco, and by continuing to teach negotiation at the Witwatersrand Business School and the Rand Afrikaans University, he has maintained his intellectual prowess and has ensured that the courses the International Negotiation Academy offer are consistently of the highest international standard.
Email Author
Website: www.negotiation-academy.com
Additional articles by Manie Spoelstra
Comments
 |
|
| Josh ,
Belchertown MA |
05/25/04 |
| Missing the Forest for the Trees |
|
|
|
|
After reading the article "Is Negotiation Still the Solution in the Middle East?" and reading the subsequent comments I get the feeling people are missing the forest for the trees.
It is quite apparent that the purpose of the article is to argue that negotiation is the only realistic path in the Middle East and that track is not dead. The other tactics and destructive actions will never move this conflict from its current abysmal state to a more constructive realm.
The others that have read this and commented have plucked out statments (trees) and lost what is really important here (forest -- i.e. the way forward). While you might disagree with some of the author's characterizations (I do as well), his overall point is one that should not be lost.
Another commentor stated that as mediators we are supposed to be unbiased and articles like this do not belong on this site. I respectfully disagree with this assessment.
On the second point -- I think this space is exactly the place to have these conversations and engage in serious dialogue about these issues.
On the first point -- every person on here is biased in their own manner. I have always held the belief that what we as mediators must strive for is equal treatment of the people involved (i.e. impartiality). This allows us to have our biases, which I don't believe we can just dispose of readily, and treat each side equally. It seems to me that is what the author is trying to do here even if some might disagree with some of his "trees".
Comments please.
Josh
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Paul ,
Pittsburgh PA |
05/07/04 |
| Editorial response |
|
|
|
|
I want to thank those of you who have written critical comments about this article – especially those who asked how an edited section could allow such an article to appear. Since my name appears at the top of the section with the label “editor” you put the ball in my court.
I have been slow in negotiating what it means to be an editor of a section and have allowed articles to be posted that bypassed me entirely in the process. I cannot leave myself in a position of responsibility where I have no chance to carry out that responsibility.
So, we are working out a new relationship where I will preview postings and try to link related articles etc. But, I would have included the article in question anyway. This should be as free a forum as possible of international conflict resolution ideas. If anyone wants to take issue with an article you can – and have done.
My current thinking is that there are three broad classes of articles which will get different treatment.
Category A: Solid articles, on relevant subjects – these will be posted and often with input from me – linking them with other articles, commenting, or otherwise.
Category B: Articles that fit our general scope but are on the fringe, do not seem to add much to our information core, or, honestly, are on subjects that I have little expertise to judge – These will be posted as is with no commentary, linking, etc.
Category C – Articles of poor quality, irrelevant to conflict resolution – These will be rejected.
The article in question here is a B. I don’t feel it contributes significantly to a better understanding of how to resolve the conflict and, as your letters have indicated, the language tends to undercut its credibility. It is worth posting, even if its only function is to attract your letters and demonstrate how sensitive the language and apparent bias can be.
For examples of Category A articles see the three recently posted - Bridging the Gap, Middle East Union and my comments - Reframing a Solution.
Shalom - Salaam |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Paul ,
Pittsburgh PA |
05/04/04 |
| Some creative thinking needed on the MidEast |
|
|
|
|
The heated exchanges going on in the International Section re: Israel/Palestine illustrate the deep and charged feeliings involved - and the difficulty of implementing any of the "old" solutions.
Last weekend (May 2) I met Jeff Halper, director of the Israeli Committee to Stop House Demolitions - he has been thinking outside the box and may have come up with a workable reframing of the problem that might be the catalyst leading to a settlement.
I invite you to read his article and my introduction (and review of his book) here on my website - until they post it in the International Section of Mediate.com I'm afraid you have to type it in manually, http://mediate.com/conflictres/index - and click on "Current International Articles" |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| richard
|
05/03/04 |
|
|
|
|
In 'Is Negotiation still the Solution in the Middle East?' Manie Spoelstra wrote "3. Israel has military power, but low moral ground, The Palestinians has less power but high moral ground."
You must be kidding, right?? Does murdering a pregnant woman (in her eighth month) along with her four children qualify as "high moral ground"?: see http://www.israelnn.com/news.php3?id=61711. Woe onto all of us in the world community if we accept this as the behaviour of a people with "high moral ground". Honestly, would you negotiate with these murderers such that you ultimately have to live with them as your neighbours??
As a mediator suggesting a solution, at the very least, you really ought to be more responsible and honest about your choice of words and ideas, especially if it is truly your sincere intention to create a climate that is conducive to a resolution of conflict.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Concerned
|
05/02/04 |
|
|
|
|
As any BASIC mediation course teaches, both parties to a dispute need to have a good faith desire to resolve it through negotiation and compromise.
Is the author ignorant of the FACT that HAMAS' stated goal is the TOTAL DESTRUCTION of Israel, not the return to any pre-war or defensible borders. How could negotiation possibly be the solution with such a party? Furthermore, is the author aware that many HAMAS attacks have taken place within the 1948 borders, ie., in Israel proper rather than the disputed territories?
So much for the authors' alleged "intellectual prowess"!
I am shocked that the mediate.com editors posted this "article". Very dissapointing. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
See All 9 Comments
