Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?
We have qualified writers to help you.
We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.
You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)
NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.
NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.
Theory
The theoretical framework guiding the study is based on the negotiation theory. The use of this theory concerning the researched issue is discussed in relevant scholarly studies. Korobkin and Zasloff (2005) note that in the bargaining zone between Israel and Palestine, there can be two possible negotiation outcomes: impasse or agreement. In the present case, the agreement would require “the assent of both parties” (Korobkin & Zasloff, 2005, p. 6).
The minimum assemblage of conditions needed for a party to choose agreement over impasse is called the “reservation point” (Korobkin & Zasloff, 2005, p. 6). Both for Israel and Palestine, the reservation point upon negotiations would be the land-for-peace agreement.
One of the most viable options available for Israel and Palestine under the negotiation theory is “delegating authority to a third party” (Korobkin & Zasloff, 2005, p. 41). However, under such circumstances, some difficulties could arise.
Firstly, the two negotiating parties would need to agree upon the rules by which their arbitrator would be governed. Secondly, they would need to decide on the arbitrator, which means that they both should trust the decisions made by the settler of the dispute and apply the established rules conscientiously. In their analysis of applying the negotiation theory to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Kteily, Saguy, Sidanius, and Taylor (2013) note that the role of such an arbitrator should be allocated to an international community.
Not all of the researchers feel optimistic about the likelihood of negotiations to bring a resolution to the Arab-Israeli conflict. For instance, Pilecki and Hammack (2014) consider that the reconciliation between the two parties is unlikely. However, other scholars feel more hopeful about the situation between Palestine and Israel and offer their perspectives on a positive solution. In particular, Coleman and Lowe (2007) remark that to reach an effective solution, such an aspect of the negotiation theory as negotiating collective identity needs to be taken into consideration.
The theoretical framework allows identifying the following set of hypotheses. The first hypothesis is that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict may end in case a more successful negotiation theory is applied. The second hypothesis is that the combination of authenticity, optimism, and an independent arbitrator can lead to a reasonable solution for the Arab-Israeli disagreement.
Narrative of the Historical Case
The main actors of this historical case are Israel and Palestine. The conflict between these two parties began in the middle of the twentieth century (Harms, 2008). However, the roots of this rivalry go back to several centuries before that, when Zionism was established. Briefly stated, Jewish people were encouraged to fight for their national homeland after having endured much harm from Russia in the eighteenth century (Harms, 2008).
Historians distinguish between several major phases of the conflict: 1947-1967 (partition, Israeli statehood, and the Six-Day War), the 1970s-1982 (the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), the 1973 War, the Camp David accords, Israel’s invasion of Lebanon), 1987-1995 (the Intifada, the Gulf Crisis, and the Peace Process) (Harms, 2008). However, the conflict has been an ongoing process until modern times despite some years having more prominence than others.
The most significant problem with the historical case is that of the territorial disagreement. For instance, according to Chapman and Benson (2015), during all the negotiations between Israel and Palestine regarding Jerusalem, the status of this city that is historically extremely important for both Muslims and Jews remains controversial.
The problem is that the Palestinian side insists on returning to the borders before 1967, recognizing the West Bank and Gaza Strip as the territory of the Palestinian state. As the negotiations of 2000 showed, such a proposal could suit Israel; however, until 1967 Jerusalem was not completely Israeli (Chapman & Benson, 2015). The authorities are not ready to give Palestinians the right to even half of the holy city, which, in turn, aggravates the confrontation.
At the same time, Israel wants to return the land that used to belong to it historically. Meanwhile, this process leads to restrictions of Palestinians’ freedom of movement and the right to return of refugees (Levine, 2009). In the course of the conflict, a large number of international conferences have been held in an attempt to protect human rights and resolve security issues (Morris, 2009). Unfortunately, the mentioned facts indicate that the two conflicting sides have not been able to arrive at a peaceful conclusion so far.
Analysis
The facts of the case tend to support the hypotheses specified in the theory section. In particular, hypothesis one is related to the fact that no viable solution has been found yet. Thus, the hypothesis of employing a more optimal negotiation theory may be successful in explaining the seemingly inexplicable aspects of the historical case. The second hypothesis is also supported by historical facts. Namely, engaging an independent arbitrator sounds like an optimal decision for the resolution of the conflict existing between Israel and Palestine.
The concepts and ideas discussed in the theory section play a crucial role in the analysis of the situation. For instance, the idea of the reservation point, mentioned in Korobkin and Zasloff’s (2005) study, is necessary to come up with a viable resolution. The concept of delegating authority to a third party, explained by Korobkin and Zasloff (2005), can also be useful to support the hypotheses. However, at the same time, scholars identify barriers to the negotiated solution in the Arab-Israeli conflict, the major one being that none of them wants to give up the territory in question.
The analysis of the confrontation proves that engaging additional forces and resources aimed at forcible influence may have serious consequences in the case of aggressive militaristic approaches. Kteily et al. (2013) argue that “the willingness to negotiate has much real-world importance,” and the lack of agreement between the opposing sides is fraught with not only local but also global conflicts (p. 979).
The consequences of this confrontation from political science include the involvement of third parties interested in a particular outcome and the significance of peace accords increases due to the value of maintaining balance. This factor proves the relevance of utilizing the negotiation theory in the context of the complex relationship between Israel and Palestine and is a weighty argument in support of applying for all the available resources aimed at stimulating a productive dialogue between the states.
At the same time, the history of the relationships between Palestine and Israel proves that many years of controversy can be based on different backgrounds. As Korobkin and Zasloff (2005) note, when there is more than one agreement within the bargaining zone, and the negotiating parties cannot agree upon a fair resolution, “an alternative course of action is for the parties to attempt to agree on a process from which a specific set of terms can unfold” (p. 40). Therefore, it is crucial to perform a more thorough examination of the identified concepts to support hypotheses.
References
Chapman, C., & Benson, K. (2015). Whose promised land: The continuing conflict over Israel and Palestine. Oxford, UK: Lion Books.
Coleman, P. T., & Lowe, J. K. (2007). Conflict, identity, and resilience: Negotiating collective identities within the Israeli and Palestinian diasporas. Conflict Resolution Quarterly, 24(4), 377-412.
Harms, G. (2008). The Palestine-Israel conflict: A basic introduction (2nd ed.). London, England: Pluto Press.
Korobkin, R., & Zasloff, J. (2005). Roadblocks to the road map: A negotiation theory perspective on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict after Yasser Arafat. Yale Journal of International Law, 30(1), 1-80.
Kteily, N., Saguy, T., Sidanius, J., & Taylor, D. M. (2013). Negotiating power: Agenda ordering and the willingness to negotiate in asymmetric intergroup conflicts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 105(6), 978-995.
Levine, M. (2009). Impossible peace: Israel/Palestine since 1989. Black Point, Canada: Fernwood Publishing.
Morris, B. (2009). One state, two states: Resolving the Israel/Palestine conflict. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Pilecki, A., & Hammack, P. L. (2014). Negotiating the past, imagining the future: Israeli and Palestinian narratives in intergroup dialog. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 43, 100-113.
Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?
We have qualified writers to help you.
We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.
You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)
NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.
NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.