Political Spinner

As Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu winds up his trip to Washington DC, the American Administration, along with the Israelis, increase their pressure on the Palestinians to abandon the current indirect negotiations track, and to agree to an immediate transition to direct negotiation with Israel. Anybody who understands the first thing about Middle East negotiations and conflict resolution knows that by pushing for direct talks, the Israelis and the Americans are making a huge mistake - a mistake that will probably cause a fairly rapid collapse of the entire fragile process. Yet, the Israelis, and with them the Americans seem determined to push for such direct talks.

Thus we are witnessing the writing of anther chapter in the sad “March of Follies”-like saga of out-of-synchronization intercultural negotiations, particularly in the Middle East context. In this installment, Western-oriented experts, along with their Western-oriented political masters, insist on foisting their understanding, philosophy and process on an unwilling, unable and otherwise accustomed Middle Easterners. It will just not work.

The history and practice of dispute resolution in the Middle East points bluntly at indirect negotiations, through the auspices of a powerful intervener, as the most potentially successful path to actual, durable agreement. President Jimmy Carter played that role when he mediated/arbitrated between Egyptians and Israelis, and President Barak Obama is in a position to do the same, but will apparently decline history’s invitation.

Palestinian President, Mahmoud Abbas has been pleading for indirect talks under US and possible European guidance. He knows what he wants and needs. For disputants in the Middle East to meet directly, without the intervention of a formidable mediator/arbitrator intervener, is almost unheard of (the sole exception is the Israeli-Jordanian agreement). The strong side will never find itself under any significant pressure to give ground, and the weak party will never be able to concede anything, even if it wants to, while being able to tell its constituency later: “The intervener made us do it.” And no party will be able to get their narrative reframed and moderated if necessary by the interveners.

Moreover, direct negotiations remove the ability of both parties to maintain their honor (a supremely important component in Middle East context) while actually making concessions and progress. Israelis are almost genetically incapable of dealing with Palestinians at eye-level. Palestinians are equally unable and unwilling to accommodate what they perceive as patronizing Israeli attitudes and postures. Since there is no place for salvaged honor in this landscape, there will most likely be no deal.

The power equation in the Middle East is not encouraging from a local dispute resolution perspective. Both parties see themselves as victims, a major obstacle to Middle East-style reconciliation which requires one party to assume at least some culpability (though not guilt). While the Palestinians see America as Israel’s protector, they also understand that only America can make Israel (and the Palestinians) make the concessions required to reach a settlement. The Israelis, amazingly enough, are in perfect agreement with the Palestinians on this point, hence their reluctance to allow the Americans to remain in the game when the going gets tough.

It is not too late for America to come to its senses and insist on indirect negotiations, under its leadership (and when needed, coaxing, even coercion). This is the only negotiations format that has a chance to succeed. It is not too late for Israel to accept the realities of dispute resolution in the Middle East and agree, even encourage indirect negotiations. Unfortunately, such an epiphany is unlikely to take place, and we will all pay the price.