Q & A Table of Contents
Can Competitive Negotiation Work Between The Palestinians And Israelis?
From: Rana, Amman, Jordan
Question: What is competitive negotiation and is it the most effective strategy?
What are the obstacles to negotiation? How should considerations of the past, present, and future influence the negotiation process? How do these issues relate to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict?
Response: Competitive negotiation is an approach based on the idea that the result of the negotiation process should yield winners and losers. Since the test of a successful negotiation says that it is a process that yields an agreement the parties are committed to fulfill, when a competitive approach is used, a party that considers itself a 'loser' is likely to look for ways to avoid fulfilling its obligations after the agreement has been reached. This means the negotiation has been a failure.
Competitive negotiation often involves using tactics that are designed to put other parties at a disadvantage in their decision-making: lying, high pressure techniques, or simply withholding information that will help them make a wiser decision.
The alternative to the competitive approach is to negotiate in a cooperative manner. In collaborative negotiation the parties recognize that negotiation is not a competitive sport. They work from the premise that, "While I may be able to solve my problem by myself, your contribution can lead to a far more favorable result."
Another term for cooperative negotiation is that the process is interest-based. When parties focus on their own interests, they are less likely to respond with agreements or concessions that are contrary to their interests - and as a result they are more likely to end up with an agreement they will willingly fulfill. This means the negotiation has been a success.
Focusing on interests can help parties overcome cultural differences that might otherwise pose obstacles to reaching agreements. While negotiators may not share common interests, if they can find complementary interests they are likely to be able to reach a resolution that works.
There are definite differences between obstacles to reaching agreements and the obstacles to negotiation you ask about in your question. One obstacle to negotiation arises when one negotiator concludes that another party has nothing to offer in terms of achieving the first party's interests. If I am looking for someone to drive me someplace, it would not make sense to ask for a ride from someone who does not have access to a car.
History can present a different kind of obstacle to negotiation. Sometimes people are so strongly influenced by history that their interest in bringing about improvements for the future is blocked from encouraging them to come to the bargaining table.
Other obstacles can also present themselves; if a negotiation is asymmetrical - where one party has the power to fulfill his/her pledges and the other does not - then negotiation may not yield durable results. One can argue, for example, that the different powers held by the leaders of Israel and the Palestinian Authority in terms of their capacity to deliver on promises is an asymmetrical situation which makes effective negotiation extremely difficult.
If the parties who have a stake in the outcome of a situation conclude that neither one can succeed without cooperation with the other, negotiation will ultimately yield the most lasting, most effective results. In the struggle between Palestinians and Israel, the influence of groups that oppose peace hampers the ability of the official leaders to reach an agreement that would improve the lives of the average people in each community.
The people who are suffering the most on each side need to exert influence on their leaders - and the organizations whose strategy is to conduct terror - to convince them that the only way long-term gains will be accomplished is through reaching agreements using peaceful means. If groups of people who share interests, in spite of being from 'opposing' communities can undertake small initiatives, good things will result. For example, if Palestinians and Israelis who have worked together in agriculture or other business sectors decide to act in concert, they may improve their own lives in the short-term and present examples of the value of cooperation for the long-term decision-making by national leaders.
Negotiation is a process of trading. Parties who need something trade with folks who have what they need. There has to be give and take. One-sided, competitive bargaining is not the wisest way to go forward. Trades between parties who have something to offer one another are far more likely to yield favorable results.
I recognize that this barely touches the surface of the issue you raise, but perhaps the building blocks created by 'average people' will yield greater returns than the battles of gladiators who are trying to amuse a dubious crowd of spectators.
Good luck,
Steve
| 
