Further reading on “Israel’s Prisoner Exchange: An Irrational Trade?” from the January 2012 issue of the Negotiation newsletter

Read more on “Israel’s Prisoner Exchange: An Irrational Trade?” from the January 2012 issue of the Negotiation newsletter in the following two articles:

Israel’s Deals with the Devils

By: Robert Mnookin

The Shalit Deal: Opportunities for Negotiators

By: Dr. Ehud Eiran

The Shalit Deal: Opportunities for Negotiators

Last weekend’s violent deal between Israel and Islamic Jihad In Gaza was interpreted by some as proof that the Gilead Shalit prisoner exchange compromised Israeli security. Beyond these recent events it is indeed clear, as Professor Robert H. Mnookin and others warned, that the Shalit deal generated numerous risks for Israel, the Palestinian Authority, and indeed to the prospect of resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Yet, the exchange also offers opportunities for a more stable Israeli-Hamas interaction.

First, the deal created a level of trust between two parties that abhor each other ideologically, interact mostly through violet means, and display deep mutual distrust.  Yet the pragmatism of the parties in the last phases of the negotiation, their ability to conclude a transaction, and the smooth execution of its first (and most significant) phase, signaled that they “can do business together”.

The large number of issues that bind Israel and the Gaza-based Hamas government – a long border, a Palestinian  economy that is dependent on Israel, and even their on-going armed exchanges – means that there is a large pool of possible deals if indeed the trust can be extended beyond this specific transaction.

Second, the exchange is a reminder to Israel that it cannot regulate the conflict with the Palestinians simply by force; the militarily and politically weak Hamas was able to coerce Israel, a regional superpower. This realization creates an incentive for Israel to engage in meaningful negotiations with the Palestinians.  Past breakthroughs between Israelis and Arabs were all preceded by a similar Israeli awareness of the limits of power: The 1979 peace agreement with Egypt was preceded by the heavy Israeli losses in the 1973 war. Similarly, the 1993 Israel and PLO agreement was preceded by Israel’s difficulty to end the Palestinian popular up-rising (Intifada) in the West Bank and Gaza.

Third, the security challenge for Israel stemming from the release of hundreds of Palestinian operatives could be mitigated, at least in part, by avoiding another round of conflict. Although much of the discussion in Israel regarding the threat posed by these operatives draws on a criminology-like “recidivism” of terrorists, it is inter-communal violence that creates the space for these operatives to use violence.

Finally, the deal buttressed an effective third party, the Egyptians. It also proved the significance of other indirect channels of communications, such as the one established by Israeli activist Gershon Baskin. Bordering both Israel and Gaza, Egypt has a strong motive to continue its constructive role.

Two caveats to this somewhat optimistic post:  First, my argument assumes that negotiations are a superior route to force in regulating the Israeli-Palestinian relationship. Though some mainstream Israelis, like former Mossad Chief Efraim Halevi, advocate for this approach, others suggest that Hamas’ “devilish” ideological commitments and its rivalry with the moderate Fatah should lead Israel to use only force against it. Second, as Professor Gabriella Blum warned us in her work, the parties’ ability to resolve some immediate problems allows them also to avoid resolving the underlining conflicts.

The Shalit prisoner exchange was painful for Israel and carries risks not only to the Jewish state but also to the moderate Palestinian Fatah movement.  These risks are further exacerbated by  the highly uncertain regional environment.  However, behind the clouds there may be a ray of sun, and it is up to us, as negotiation scholars, to try and point to it.

Dr. Ehud Eiran is a post-doctoral fellow at the Department of International Relations at Haifa University, Israel, and an affiliate of PON’s Middle East Negotiation Initiative. He was a senior visiting fellow at PON 2003-2006.

World Peace and Other 4th-Grade Achievements

“World Peace and Other 4th-Grade Achievements”

A film screening & discussion with innovative teacher John Hunter and filmmaker Chris Farina.

Date: Wednesday, November 2, 2011

Time: 7:15 PM

Location: Langdell North, Harvard Law School Campus

For over thirty years, a public school teacher in Virginia has been teaching his students the work of peace through a remarkable exercise that he calls the World Peace Games. This film is his story.

A PON Film Series event; co-sponsored by the Harvard Law Documentary Studio.

Pizza, drinks and dessert will be served.

Click here for a campus map.

About the Film

Directed by Chris Farina, World Peace and Other 4th-Grade Achievements interweaves the story of John Hunter, a teacher in Charlottesville, Virginia, with his students’ participation in an exercise called the World Peace Game.

The game triggers an eight-week transformation of the children from students of a neighborhood public school to citizens of the world. The film reveals how a wise, loving teacher can unleash students’ full potential.

Hunter teaches the concept of peace not as a utopian dream but as an attainable goal to strive for, and he provides his students with the tools for this effort. The children learn to collaborate and communicate with each other as they work to resolve the Game’s conflicts. They learn how to compromise while accommodating different perspectives and interests. Most importantly, the students discover that they share a deep and abiding interest in taking care of each other. World Peace and Other 4th-Grade Achievements will inspire others by documenting the unheralded work of a true peacemaker.

About John Hunter

A native Virginian and graduate of Virginia Commonwealth University, John Hunter is an award-winning gifted teacher and educational consultant who has dedicated his life to helping children realize their full potential. Employing his background as a musician composer and filmmaker during a three-decade career as a teacher, Hunter has combined his gifted teaching and artistic talents to develop unique teaching programs using multimedia software programs in creative writing and film courses.

During his university years, he traveled and studied comparative religions and philosophy throughout Japan, India and China. It was while in India, the cradle of gandhian thought, Hunter, intrigued by the principles of non-violence, began to think of how his profession might contribute to peace in the world.

Knowing that ignoring violence would not make it go away, how could he teach peace in an often-violent world? Accepting the reality of violence, he would seek to incorporate ways to explore harmony in various situations. This exploration would take form in the framework of a game – something that students would enjoy. Within the game data space, they would be challenged, while enhancing collaborative and communication skills.

In 1978, at the Richmond Community High School, Hunter led the first sessions of his World Peace Game. Over time, in a synchronous unfolding with the growing global focus on increasingly complex social and political conditions, the game has gained new impetus. As Hunter succinctly explains, “The World Peace Game is about learning to live and work comfortably in the unknown.”

Beyond diplomacy: Embedding peace and conflict transformation processes in Nepal and Lebanon

“Beyond diplomacy:  Embedding peace and conflict transformation processes in Nepal and Lebanon”

 with

Jeff Seul

Chairman, Peace Appeal Foundation

and

Martin Wahlisch

International Lawyer and Researcher, Common Space Initiative (Beirut) 

 

Date: November 8, 2011

Time: 4:00-6:00 PM

Where: Weatherhead Center for International Affairs
1737 Cambridge Street, Room K-354, Cambridge MA

Contact Chair: Donna Hicks (dhicks@wcfia.harvard.edu).

Speaker Bios

Jeff Seul, Chairman of the Peace Appeal Foundation, is a partner in the international law firm Holland & Knight, where his practice is focused on domestic and international business matters, including mergers and acquisition and other strategic transactions.

Prior to joining Holland & Knight, Jeff Seul was vice president, general counsel and secretary of Groove Networks, a software company founded by Ray Ozzie, who created Lotus Notes and is now Microsoft’s Chief Software Architect.  Mr. Seul joined Groove Networks in early 2000, before the company launched its first product.  Groove Networks was acquired by Microsoft in 2005, and its products are now part of the Microsoft Office system.  

Mr. Seul taught at Harvard Law School for several years before joining Groove Networks.  He has written extensively in the fields of negotiation and conflict resolution and has served as an arbitrator, mediator or advisor in a broad variety of disputes.  Mr. Seul was a senior associate of the Program on International Conflict Analysis and Resolution at the Weatherhead Center for International Affairs while at Harvard.  Mr. Seul practiced with law firms in San Francisco and Boulder from 1988-95.

At the request of the co-facilitators of Nepal’s peace process, Mr. Seul recently led a team of lawyers and law professors in the production of an 80-page report that surveys international law and scholarly opinion regarding the various approaches states have used to enforce the rights of victims of human rights abuses and war crimes and stabilize peace at the end of a civil war.

Martin Wahlisch is an international lawyer bringing comparative experience to the Common Space Initiative. His areas of research and technical support focuses on issues of international law, transitional justice, constitutional change and dialogue processes. He is also an associate of Berghof Foundation for Peace Support and senior researcher at the Center for Peace Mediation in Berlin. As a visiting scholar he is also affiliated with the Issam Fares Institute for Public Policy and International Affairs at the American University of Beirut (AUB). 

About the Herbert C. Kelman Seminar Series

The 2011-2012 Herbert C. Kelman Seminar on International Conflict Analysis and Resolution series is sponsored by the Program on Negotiation, the Nieman Foundation for Journalism, the Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics, and Public Policy, The Weatherhead Center for International Affairs, and Boston area members of the Alliance for Peacebuilding. The theme for this year’s Kelman Seminar is “Negotiation, Conflict and the News Media”.

Capitalize on negotiator differences

Adapted from “What Divides You May Unite You,” by James K. Sebenius (professor, Harvard Business School), first published in the Negotiation newsletter, July 2005.

Some years ago, an English property development firm had assembled most of the land outside London that it needed to build a large regional hospital. Yet a key parcel remained, and its owner stubbornly resisted selling. The small property was appraised at a mere £80,000, but the developer had successively offered £90,000, £100,000, £120,000, and—ultimately—£200,000 to no avail. Clearly, the owner was aware of the parcel’s pivotal position and seemed determined to exploit it.

With the project hanging in the balance, the firm’s chief executive arranged a personal appointment with the owner. The executive arrived by chauffeur at the elderly woman’s somewhat shabby, but neat cottage, and she invited him in for tea.

Looking around the home, the executive noticed several pictures of a small dog adorning the walls. The owner sadly recounted how “dear Fluffy” had passed away three years ago. The executive asked to see the beloved pet’s gravesite. Following a moment of quiet contemplation in the cottage’s tiny garden, he delicately asked whether the woman had considered what would happen to the spot in coming years. “Would a proper memorial, well tended in perpetuity, be fitting?”

In the end, the development firm arranged for Fluffy to be handsomely interred in a prestigious pet cemetery, the cottage was sold for less than £100,000, and plans for the hospital were back on track. On closing, the owner remarked, “What use does an old woman like me have for money, as long as I can let a nice flat closer to Fluffy?”
However quirky, this story illustrates two important truths about effective negotiation. One, the most powerful ingredients of joint gain often turn out to be the differences among parties. Two, finding those differences requires probing beyond apparently incompatible bargaining positions to understand the other side’s true interests.

Focusing on differences to create value may seem counterintuitive. After all, don’t we negotiate to resolve differences? In fact, value-creating differences—those that one side can meet relatively cheaply but that offer significant value to the other side and vice versa—are the key to joint gains. It was easy for the development firm to solve the owner’s “Fluffy problem,” which meant a great deal to her. In turn, the owner enabled the hospital project to go through with a simple sale.

This basic deal design principle applies to simple differences of interest or priority. It also extends to differences in forecasts or beliefs about the future, differences in attitudes toward risk and time, and a host of other differences that can be profitably dovetailed for mutual benefit.