Preconditions
Jackson Diehl explains that "the still-evolving unity pact" between Hamas and Fatah to form a coherent government in the Palestinian Authority and a unified approach to Israel and the West, "isn't likely to impress either Olmert or Bush, since it almost certainly won't commit Hamas or the new government to formal recognition of Israel or an unqualified renunciation of violence." I have to say that I find this kind of mindset -- which was also in evidence last week when I discussed these issues with an Israeli politician -- a little bit puzzling. From where I sit, it seems to me that formal recognition of Israel and an unqualified renunciation of violence would be Israel's main objectives in a negotiation aimed at a permanent status treaty.
Such a treaty would demarcate the borders of Israel and Palestine, provide for the mutual recognition of those borders by the two states, entail recognition of the two states by the rest of the world's countries, and establish peace between the two states. That's the goal -- something that would be the outcome of negotiations, not a precondition for them. That's how wars end; first you have a cease-fire to facilitate negotiations, then if you reach an agreement the agreement contains provisions for recognition and a renunciation of violence. Insofar as Hamas simply isn't amenable to any kind of reasonable settlement (which certainly seems plausible) it seems to me that it would be in Israel's interest to get that fact plainly on the table rather than having everything stuck in a meta-negotiation about preconditions.
Comments
OK, While I agree with your basic premise on ceasefire, negotiation, treaty. How do you negotiate with an entity who refuses to acknowledge your right to exist? As you stated the first step is the cease fire. For a cease fire it would seem that you would have to begin with acknowledgement of the state of Israel and then the renunciation of violence. Now you can get to work on a treaty which aligns the neighbor states and secures the peace.
I've seen you make arguments like this before, MY, that negotiators should not expect the other side to agree to stipulated preconditions, when the contents of those preconditions are exactly the sorts of things that the other party will want to negotiate about.
And I certainly agree that the piling up of preconditions is sometimes a way for one party to avoid or sabotage negotiations in bad faith, without coming right out and saying "we refuse to negotiate". (The Bush regime's reaction to Iran goes into this category, for instance).
But as a general matter of game theory, I'm not sure what you're saying makes sense.
A and B are considering negotiating. A says "before we negotiate, we want B to make concession C".
Matt then says "that's crazy, why should B give up C, when C is a central topic for their future negotiations?"
Fair enough, but by the same token, why should A give up the tactic of proposing preconditions, when that tactic itself is a central tactic of negotiation?
I mean, in at least some cases, A's proposal of a precondition means that A has just started negotiating, ipso facto.
Not always; as noted, sometimes it is a way for A to sabotage negotiations.
But at least sometimes, the naming of preconditions is an act of negotiating. And in those cases, asking A not to propose preconditions is as unreasonable as asking B to accept them without negotiation.
Sometimes it's all haggling--both the haggling proper, and the haggling about preconditions for haggling.
kid bitzer,
While you are right on the money with what you have said here, I would still contend that in this instance, regardless of your position or political alignment, this situation is far more basic. If there is not an acknowledgement that both sides actually have the right to exist and that they both desire peace – you have no negotiations to consider.
Matthew, have you been listening to the elected Hamas leaders? In interview after interview they stated that it would be possible to talk about recognizing Israel only after Israel met a list of pre-conditions which would give Hamas most of their demands without negotiation.
[F]ormal recognition of Israel and an unqualified renunciation of violence would be Israel's main objectives in a negotiation aimed at a permanent status treaty.
Israel's main objective in negotiations remains the same: it gives them the opportunity periodically to declare again that there is no partner for peace, and that they have no choice (doggone it!) but to continue the occupation.
[F]ormal recognition of Israel and an unqualified renunciation of violence would be Israel's main objectives in a negotiation aimed at a permanent status treaty.
Israel's main objective in negotiations remains the same: it gives them the opportunity periodically to declare again that there is no partner for peace, and that they have no choice (doggone it!) but to continue the occupation.
Many if not most Palestinians think Arafat blundered by recognizing Israel before Israel recognized a Palestinian state. In effect, the moderate elements of Hamas are simply trying to undo that concession, which puts them in league with the Hamas hardliners who want to eventually destroy Israel.
I remember Vietnam negotiations were stalled over the shape of the table to be used during those negotiations. Sometimes all the world seems like a Seinfeld episode--and nothing happens--except a couple of thousand more people die. In this case, MY is wrong, the give and take, on one level, is about land and power, not Israel's existence, and on the higher plane, religion. It's this "higher authority" that prevents progress--and no one is addressing it.
Arafat had a good deal with Barak, knew it, but also was aware that his agreement would have led to his assassination. Religion is illogical, and thus a formidable impediment. The only solution possible here is one dictated by force. And that's why there's never a solution. Israel has to hope religion (Christian hate of Muslims) trumps the world's thirst for oil. Not likely, so it loses a war of attrition. Thus, Israel clandestinely suggests it has nukes, over-reacts to stimuli, and waits. The Palestinians have a seemingly endless supply of willing martyrs, most of the world's oil powers as allies, and time on its side. The populations suffer, but they're not part of the equation.
We won't be able to figure this out. My guess is that the West will get tired defending Jews, and will allow the martyrs victory, as long as the oil still flows. History has proven that holocausts are frequent occurrences--no one should be surprised.
Why, it's almost as if the Israeli government isn't actually that interested in negotiations, and places a higher priority on poorly-thought-through demonstrations of "will" and "toughness" for its domestic audience.
That is, of course, un-possible.
Why, it's almost as if the Israeli government isn't actually that interested in negotiations, and places a higher priority on poorly-thought-through demonstrations of "will" and "toughness" for its domestic audience.
That is, of course, un-possible.
Why, it's almost as if the Israeli government isn't actually that interested in negotiations, and places a higher priority on poorly-thought-through demonstrations of "will" and "toughness" for its domestic audience.
That is, of course, un-possible.
Bah bah bah. Sorry for the triple-post: a flaky internet connection kept timing out as I was hitting the submit button. Matt, feel free to delete this and the extra responses. (And hey, while you're at it, be a mensch and dislodge my last reply on the "clarity" thread from the spamfilter?)
Irony of ironies that one of the most reliable zingers from the AIPAC side of the propaganda war is this whole "they refuse to recognize the right of Israel to exist."
Because Israel DOES exist, #1, and #2, does NOT recognize the right of Palestine to exist. Say the word "Palestine" to an Israeli and 9 times out of 10, you'll be corrected, that no such place exists.
But Israel is indeed negotiating in bad faith, because they desire that the occupation continue, and continue to expand, as some of your astute commenters pointed out. That an overwhelming majority of the Israeli population would like peace is completely irrelevant; the shot-callers are utterly convinced they can just a few more assassinations here and cluster bombs there, and they won't have to give 'the Arabs' a goddamn thing.
With the amount of artifice that Israel's public relations empire employs on a regular basis a well documented thing on the net, I'm surprised anyone in political punditry would just take them at their word.
I think Matt is very much on the money.
The concept of pre-conditions to negotiations simply does not seem to work in many cases (see North Korea and Iran as other examples).
And, they almost force your potential negotiating partner to reject them, as the acceptance of pre-conditions will always show a weak hand, especially to your domestic audience.
While it is true that setting pre-conditions is a form of negotiation, it is a very poor form of negotiation -- far too public, without allowing clever diplomats to actually talk and listen in order to find potential ways to come to closure on issue. It forces the potential partner to lose face publicly before even starting.
As with so many other techniques of the bellicose crowd, it plays well to the angry crowd, but makes solving problems just that much harder to do.
I agree with Matt here. Why do there need to be any preconditions for negotiations? If a settlement is impossible, this will become clear in the process of the negotiations, won't it?
This is especially true given the assymmetricality of the situation. As Murph notes above, Israel does exist, and Palestine does not. Israel has the ability to allow or to prevent the creation of a Palestinian state. No Palestinian entity has the ability to destroy Israel.
I think the clear implication from all this is that the Israeli government is not particularly interested in trying to negotiate an end to this conflict. I think this is in part because the Israelis have become convinced (rightly or wrongly) that there's no point anyway, and fear that negotiations that didn't work would put the government in a bad position politically. But I think there's also the issue that multiple Israeli governments are essentially committed to a position that no Palestinian entity could ever accept. Camp David was about the best the Israelis had to offer, and, in spite of Israeli propaganda to the contrary, this was a deal which was (rightly, I think) entirely unacceptable to the Palestinians. Tabah might have provided a workable framework, but it was clearly well beyond anything the Israeli public was ready to offer. (The Palestinian failure to actually present a negotiating position in all this did not help).
Thus, the current government is committed to a policy of ignoring the Palestinian leadership and engaging in this "unilateral disengagement" business. For this policy to be tenable, they have to ignore Palestinian efforts to negotiate. Which they do by imposing impossible preconditions.
The whole thing is a mess, and I can't see any clear way out of it.
mirc
mirç
mırc
mırç
mircturk
turkmirc
turkiyemirc
mircturkiye
mirch
mırch
mirc indir
mirc yükle
mirc yukle
mırc indir
mırc yukle
mirc turkiye
turkiye mirc
turk mirc
mirc turk
türkçe mirc
türkce mirc
türkçe mırc
turkce mirc
turkçe mirc
turkçe mırc
turkce mirc
mirc chat
mirc sohbet
mirc ara
muhabbet
chat
blog
muhabbet
forum
forum
turkiyeforum
türk forum
mirc
mircturk
turkmirc
mirc indir
sohbet
chat
bedava sohbet
turksohbet
turkiye sohbet
sohbet odaları
bedava chat
chat odaları
türk chat
türkiye chat
turkada
turkmirc
mirc inndir
karar
slm
slm
sex shop
thanks .
Thanks Best Regards
mirc
mırc
mırç
mircturk
mirctürk
turkmirc
mirc indir
mırc indir
mirç indir
mirc yükle
mırc yükle
mirc yukle
mırc yukle
mirch
mırch
mirc turk
turk mirc
mırc turk
mircada
mircturkiye
muhabbet
mirc sohbet
mırc sohbet
mirc chat
mırc chat
mırc ındır
mirc ındır
türkçe mirc
turkce mirc
turkçe mırc
turkce mırc
oper mirc
sohbet
forum
chat
online sinema
catlak
türk forum
turk forum
kafkas
kafkasya
ders
siyaset
izmir
karşiyaka
karsiyaka
forum
karsıyaka
sohbet
penis büyütücüler
harbiarkadas.com
harbiarkadas.net
harbiarkadas.org
itirafet.org
ebedava.net
elektronikmarket.net
ameribress.com
clitoriacream.net
superspenisbuyutucu.com
megabress.com
rednightperformans.com
performansartirici.com
penisplus.tv
penispluspenisbuyutucu.com
penispluspenisbuyutucu.net
cinselmerkez.com
aseks.net
erotikcamasirlar.com
vajinatr.com
bakirevajina.com
cinselkozmetik.com
kozmetikmedikel.com
eturknet.com
tecavuz.net
yutuvideo.com
ponotubesex.com
laraperuk.com
sackanagimerkezi.com
peruksa.com
perukmarket.com
aseks.com
aloveshop.com
erotikgiyim.com
geciktiricispreyler.com
geciktiricihap.com
geciktiriciler.com
azdirici.com
bayanuyarici.com
fntazialemi.com
fantaziservisi.om
cinselmazemeler.com
cinselfantaziurunleri.com
erotikdakikalar.com
erotikmarketiniz.com
seksmarketiniz.com
sekshatlari.com
erotikdergiler.com
erotikderginiz.com
penisbuyutucuviprx.com
penisbuyutucuvigrx.com
penisbuyutuculer.com
vigrxpenisbuyutucu.com
sismebebekler.com
sismebebekshop.com
yemekeviniz.com
sanalmarketiniz.com
elektronikmarket.net
ebedava.net
kontortr.com
elaydin23.com
turkcellkontorcu.com
aveakontoral.com
vodafonekontoral.com
toptankontorcu.com
cinselkozmetik.com
bayanpartnerler.com
erkekpartnerler.com
kizarkadaslar.com
yonjaarkadas.com
siberalem-siberalem.com
sexpartnerler.com
sekspartnerler.com
erotikpartnerler.com
gencyuz.com
erkekarkadaslar.com
bayanarkadaslar.com
yemekeviniz.com
sanalmarketiniz.com
baskahaber.com
medikalkozmetik.net
kozmetikmedikal.com
zayiflamavediyet.net
zayiflamahapii.com
zayiflamabandii.com
kilovertr.com
zayiflamatr.net
diyettr.com
toksinbandi.net
botoxtr.com
botokstr.com
selulittedavii.com
selulitgiderici.net
selulitkremii.com
catlaktedavisii.com
catlakgiderici.net
catlakkremii.com
sex shop
Post A Comment