Negotiation is a conflict-resolution mechanism that differs from mediation and arbitration in that it does not involve a third party taking part in the talks; if there is a facilitator between the parties, his role is limited to providing logistical support for the negotiating process. The best example of negotiation is what took place between the Provisional Government of the Algerian Republic and the French government at the end of the Algerian war of liberation, between 1961 and 1962, when the talks were held between the two parties to the conflict alone, even though the Swiss government provided logistical support to the Algerian side in the later stages.
What we are witnessing in the Palestinian–Israeli conflict, by contrast, is a hybrid formula closer to mediation than to negotiation, because there are third parties, or rather one main third party, the United States, that aspires to play a vital role in the mediation process but is not qualified to act as mediator.
Any negotiation between parties to a conflict requires certain conditions in order to succeed. They concern, first, the conduct of the negotiation, that is, the parties’ readiness, outlook and approaches; second, its content, that is, the positions, interests and goals put on the table; and third, the process, that is, how the negotiation is conducted, who takes part and under whose auspices. Below are eight conditions that must be met for negotiations to succeed: parity, legitimacy of aims, representativeness, legitimacy of the negotiators, a frame of reference, credibility, impartiality and creativity. These conditions are not met in the Palestinian–Israeli negotiations, which explains why they repeatedly and continually stall.
1― Parity: the most important condition for successful negotiations is good faith, strong will and genuine readiness on the part of all the parties. This is achieved only if everyone feels that their interests are interlinked and that some of their own interests can be safeguarded only through negotiation. In the Palestinian case this condition is not met, because of the asymmetry and disparity between the parties and the imbalance of power between them. On one side there is an Israeli party arrogant in its military, political and diplomatic strength; on the other, a Palestinian party that is divided and politically and militarily weak. Since the Israeli side does not in fact need negotiations to achieve its interests, it resorts to them only to buy time in order to change the reality on the ground, using them as cover for the Judaisation of Palestinian landmarks and to present the world with a fait accompli. The task, then, is to achieve the greatest possible symmetry and parity between the parties, on the one hand by supporting the resistance of the Palestinian people and seeking to unite its ranks, and on the other by exposing the intransigence of the Israeli side and weakening its position internationally, and by supporting the Israeli forces and Jewish movements around the world that call for a just peace.
2― Legitimacy of aims: the legitimacy of goals and interests, and whether they are negotiable, must be examined. Some issues can be put on the table and others are not negotiable at all, such as the basic needs of individuals and communities, including security, food, drink, clothing and shelter, as well as the right to freedom and respect for identity. It is not permissible, for example, to negotiate how housing will be confiscated or how an element of identity will be abolished. Before entering any negotiation, therefore, the Palestinian side must define the content of the talks so that it does not conflict with the legitimate rights and basic needs of the Palestinian people and its members.
3― Representativeness: the representativeness of the parties (and not just two parties, as some imagine) is vital in any conflict, and particularly in the Palestinian–Israeli conflict, which is a conflict between two peoples and not between two parties. The Israeli side largely ensures this by taking care to respect and take into account the demands of all the components of its society. The Palestinian side has not yet achieved it, because of the division of its ranks and the confinement of negotiating representation to one Palestinian party. All sections of Palestinian society, its political blocs, intellectual currents and social forces, must therefore be involved in one way or another in the negotiating process.
4― Legitimacy of the negotiators: the negotiator must be legitimate, mandated by the holders of the right, with legitimate authority to negotiate, which strengthens his position vis-à-vis the other parties. Here too we see an asymmetry in the Palestinian–Israeli negotiations: while the Israeli negotiator draws his legitimacy from free and fair elections, at least in the sense of Israeli democracy, the Palestinian negotiator largely lacks popular legitimacy. The intra-Palestinian conflict must therefore be resolved as quickly as possible, so that free and fair elections can be held, with results recognised regionally and internationally, producing legitimate legislative and executive authorities that appoint the negotiating team and give it the authority to negotiate.
5― A frame of reference: the frame of reference is the set of texts and institutions agreed in advance to which the negotiator turns in determining his position on events and positions that arise during the negotiations. It is the compass that keeps the negotiator from getting lost in the maze of negotiation and from straying from the general framework set by those who mandated him. While the Israeli side enjoys a solid frame of reference with the consensus of Israeli society, the Palestinian side lacks one and moves through a fog accumulated from the fallout of Oslo and Madrid and the freezing of the role of the Palestine Liberation Organisation. Palestinians of all persuasions must therefore agree on a new national frame of reference defining the framework within which the Palestinian negotiator operates.
6― Credibility: the credibility of the sponsor of the negotiations, the mediator, is essential and determines their outcome. In the Palestinian–Israeli conflict, the bloody past and present of the United States and its support for corrupt and corrupting despotic regimes, especially in the Muslim world, disqualify it as a mediator. Tony Blair’s record does not qualify him for this role either. The Palestinian side must therefore look for new, more credible actors to propose for the mediation team, the so-called Quartet (the United States, the European Union, the Russian Federation and the United Nations). Countries such as Brazil, South Africa and Turkey could play an active role in this field.
7― Impartiality: it is also essential that the sponsor of the negotiations be free of any self-interest that might arise from them and not be biased towards any party. The United States’ bias towards Israel, and the overlap of its interests in the region with those of some of the negotiating parties, confirm that it is unfit to act as mediator and underline the need to look for impartial and unbiased alternatives for mediation.
8― Creativity: creativity on the part of the negotiators and the sponsor is necessary to propose innovative solutions to overcome and transform the conflict and to imagine a new reality in which all parties feel their legitimate interests are secured. In the Palestinian–Israeli conflict, everyone seems trapped between two options with no third. A majority supports the “two-state solution”, which has become absurd over time, since the Palestinian state, with the geography and economic structure currently proposed, is not viable. A minority prefers the “one-state solution”, a democratic state with room for all regardless of ethnicity, religion and political affiliation, but this solution meets strong opposition from the Israeli side, which believes in the principle of the Jewish state and works to entrench it. The debate must therefore be opened to other proposals, which will take shape only in a creative climate in which the seven preceding conditions are met.
We conclude, then, that the current Palestinian–Israeli negotiations are futile, because the conditions for their success are not currently met; meeting them requires a review of many issues that directly affect the negotiating process. Moreover, the Palestinian–Israeli conflict is too intractable to be resolved by the Palestinian and Israeli parties alone: its historical, geographical, cultural, religious and geostrategic dimensions make its resolution dependent on the regional and international balance of power. Hence the importance of an active role for the Arab world, absent at the official level and silenced at the popular level. The keys to resolving the Palestinian–Israeli conflict are not in Tel Aviv, Ramallah or Gaza, nor even in Washington or Brussels, but in the defeated Arab capitals; and the conflict will not be resolved until Arab citizens are free and the Arab world thus has a voice that is heard in world forums and an influential role on the international stage.
Abbas Aroua
3 October 2010
Source: Al Jazeera Net
