The Camp David Summit: Conflict Between the Palestines and the Israelis - Paper Example

The Palestines and the Israelis have been involved in conflicts and tensions for decades. Each party has had its grievances, and the conflicts have involved the international community in trying to resolve the conflict (Meital, 2006). The Camp David summit was one of the meetings that was set up to solve the ongoing problems between the two countries. The Camp David meeting was held from July 11-24-2000 at a presidential summit in the famous Camp David. Those in attendance included the United States President Bill Clinton, Israel Prime Minister Mr. Ehud Barak, and the PA chairman Yasser Arafat. The USA president was passionate about the Middle East peace, and he wanted to find a solution to the long-running tension and conflict between the two countries (Finkelstein, 2007). The summit ended after 15 days without any concrete resolution. President Clinton was very involved in the meetings apart from a short break that he took because he had to attend the G6 summit in Japan. Other members who were active in the Camp David talks were Sandy Berger who was the United States National advisor and Denis Rose. There was lot of hopes about the talks, but unfortunately, nothing come out of it due to the hardline stance that each country held (Weitzman, & Shamir, 2005)

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

The summit was not successful despite the high hopes that I would have addressed the long standing Israel-Palestine conflict ( Halper, 2000). After the failure of the Camp David summit, Mr. Arafat requested another meeting and in December 2000 meetings were held in the statehouse and President Clinton gave his final proposal. Barak accepted the offers but Arafat did not, and he simply left the talks. The Exit of Arafat was a surprise since people expected the meeting would yield some fruits. This paper will examine the Camp David summit talk and analyze the cause of its failure from a negotiation point of view. The availability or lack of a (ZOPA) and the study of the Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement (BATNA) will be analyzed to determine what went wrong during the 2000 Camp David summit.

Offers

The agreements and proposal were not written down, and they can, therefore, be considered as ideas or brainstorms since they were not binding. The Israelis were willing to withdraw from most of the west bank boarders. The Palestine were supposed to have been giving approximately 90 cents of the West Bank (Matz, 2006). The Israelites, however, wanted to annex those parts of the west bank and Gaza strip that has a majority of its population as Jewish. They also wanted to take control and annex parts of the Jordan Valley. The Israelis were willing to turn over suburbs such as Abu Dis to the Palestinians. They were also willing to give autonomy to the Palestinians in some parts of East Jerusalem and allow Palestinians to fly their flag over the Muslim and Christian areas. They were however not willing to give Palestinians sovereignty over East Jerusalem. Israel wanted Palestine to be granted custodianship over the temple mount but not sovereignty. They also wanted to have control over the western wall that is considered sacred.

Israelis wanted to be allowed to set up radar stations within the Palestine state and also use its airspace. The also wanted deployment of international troops along the Jordan Valley and permission to deploy troops to Palestine in the case of an emergency. They also wanted the Palestines to control the borders but under Israel observation. They also wanted the demilitarization of the Palestine state except for the military. Another one of Israels demand was the sharing of resources from the west bank with Israel having control over the water. They also wanted Arafat to declare the conflict was over and that they will not make any more demands and the refugees were to be compensated instead of being repatriated. Finally, there was to be no compromise about the settlements in East Jerusalem and Israel were to keep them (Hanieh, 2001).

The Palestines on their part wanted full sovereignty over Gaza and East Jerusalem. The Israelis, however, were not willing to give them independence. They were concerned that the return to the 1967 border would pose a threat to their nation. The summit also suffered a major setback since each county had a different definition of the west bank territory. The Israelis do not include East Jerusalem and some parts of the Red Sea as being part of the west bank. Palestine wanted a full withdrawal of Israel from all the areas that were captured in the 1967 war. The lands included the West bank, East Jerusalem, and the Gaza strip. The Palestines wanted all the refugees displaced during the Israeli occupation be allowed to return home. They also wanted the Israelis to take responsibility for causing the refugees crisis. The Israelites refused to take any legal or moral responsibility. The wanted the refugee crisis to be handled by the international community by using international funds that are available (Finkelstein, 2007).

The reasons that caused the summit to collapse included the failure to agree over the city of Jerusalem. The Israelis agreed to divide the city with Palestine gaining sovereignty over most of the Arab populated areas. The areas included the walled old city and the temple mount. It also included giving Palestine control over the al-Aqsa mosque as well as the remains of King Solomons temple (Agha & Malley 2001). Arafat did not agree to the proposal but instead wanted the whole of the old city and the temple mounts to be under Palestine state. He rejected the suggestion that the temple mount should be governed jointly with the Israelis (Finkelstein, 2007). The Israelis also refused the Palestines request to have the refugees return home. They agreed to absorb only a few thousand refugees under a family reunion scheme ( Hanieh, 2001). Although the Camp David summit was meant to bridge the long-running conflict between the two countries, little that was agreed on. The suggestions that were raised in the summit were oral, and the Israelis did not share their position papers with other delegates. The aim was to prevent the agreement to be used in further agreements as binding commitments. The negotiations were also done through the United States, and Barak kept direct contact with Arafat to a bare minimum. In such kinds of conditions, the meeting is more of a brainstorming session than a formal meeting.

Best alternative to negotiated agreement (BATNA ) is a method that is used in negotiations to decide the best decision to make in a negotiation. It is important to understand BATNA if one is involved in a negotiation so as to come up with the best solution to a negotiation. Having the knowledge to analyze decisions will allow one to decide the threshold of accepting or rejecting an offer. The following steps should be followed in determining a BATNA. The first step is to list all the available alternatives. Think about what options are available if no deal is agreed at. A good negotiator should have a list of a do-deal option on the table. The next step is evaluating the available alternatives. Each option should be carefully examined, and the value of pursuing it evaluated. The course of action that provides one with the highest value should then be picked from the available options. Finally, the reservation value should be calculated that is the lowest value deal that can be acceptable. So as to achieve the best results, each party should analyze and understand the other parties BATNA.

Getting to Yes is a book authored by Roger Fisher and William Ury and tries to answer the question on how people can solve their differences without having to fight or giving in. Everyone is a negotiator, by learning how to get what you want without giving in is critical. There are two ways of negotiating, the soft way or the hard way (William, Fisher, & Patton, 2011). A soft negotiator likes having an amicable solution to problems and he/she often getting exploited and feeling bitter. On the other hand, a hard negotiator sees every negotiation as a completion. He sees the winner as the person who holds longer and holds extreme positions. A hard negotiator ends up feeling exhausted and using a lot of his resources. After the negotiations, the relationship with the other side is often harmed. The best strategy is taking the middle ground where there is a tradeoff where you get what you want and also get along with the other party. The Israelis and the Palestines should have used the principled negotiation technique. The method involves looking at issues through their merit rather than haggling over what each side says it will do or not do. The parties should consider the mutual benefit whenever possible. In the event of a conflict of interest, there should be a reasonable standard that that is free of the interest of each side that determines the results. The methods allow on to get what he deserves while remaining fair to the other party. It also allows one to get results while remaining decent. Since the methods emphasis on the merit and not the people, it ensures the involved parties stay on good terms (William, Fisher, & Patton, 2011).

Arguing over position

Arguing over position is an inefficient method and hardly offers any solution. When parties argue over position, a new problem arises that of saving face. As more effort is put in defending positions, less effort is put in addressing the underlying positions. By supporting a position one tries to increase a favorable position instead of an agreeable position.

Territory Issue

Palestine interest.

The Palestinians interest is having a sovereign state covering the whole of Gaza Strip and the West Bank. The stand was not a hardline one since they agreed to swap land if Israel agreed.

Israel Interest

The Israelis on their part wanted to annex the various settlement sites on the Palestine land. They did not want a return to the 1967 borders since they were concerned about the security of the nation. The two parties, however, had a different interpretation of the west bank with Israel excluding East Jerusalem and the waters of Red Sea. The PLO was not offering any compromise on national matters and were only willing to concede if a land swap was done The Israelis and Americans said they were close to an agreement than never before. They were reading the Palestines interest the wrong way

Strategy used

The Palestinians and the Israelis took a positional bargaining while dealing with the territory issues. Instead of having an open mind, they came to the table with predetermined solutions that they would like to accomplish. Taking a position negatively affects the negotiations as it demonstrates how you would like a negotiation to end and shows how little you care about the other party. Arguing over the position that each hold endangers the ongoing negotiation process. The negotiation stops about giving and take and starts being a contest of will. The person with the most willpower tries to force the other party to change his position. By arguing its my way or no way, a negotiator blocks chances of any successful solution.

Suggestion

Both the Israelis and the Palestines should have tried to separate the people from the problem. It is hard to deal with a problem without the people involved getting angry or taking things personally. Since negotiators are human beings with feelings, deeply held values and come from different backgrounds, the Israelis and Palestinians should have made a point of trying to have a personal relationship. The Camp David summit was very impersonal with Americans acting as the middlemen. A working relationship where there are trust and respect can ensure a smooth and efficient negotiation process. The psychological need for people feel good about themselves, and the concern abo...