Reframing And Resolving Conflict Israeli-Palestinian .
Reframing and Resolving ConflictIsraeli-Palestinian Negotiations 1988-1998Aggestam, Karin1999Link to publicationCitation for published version (APA):Aggestam, K. (1999). Reframing and Resolving Conflict: Israeli-Palestinian Negotiations 1988-1998. LundUniversity Press.Total number of authors:1General rightsUnless other specific re-use rights are stated the following general rights apply:Copyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authorsand/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by thelegal requirements associated with these rights. Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private studyor research. You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portalRead more about Creative commons licenses: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/Take down policyIf you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will removeaccess to the work immediately and investigate your claim.LUNDUNIVERSITYPO Box11722100Lund 46462220000
REFRAMING AND RESOLVINGCONFLICTIsraeli-Palestinian Negotiations1988-1998Karin AggestamLund Political Studies 108
The cover displays the word of peace in Arabic (salaam) and inHebrew (shalom).Lund University PressBox 141S-221 00 LundSweden Karin Aggestam 1999Art nr 20593ISSN 0460-0037ISBN 91-7966-589-6Printed in SwedenStudentlitteraturLund 1999
CONTENTSAcknowledgementsList of Abbreviationsviixi— Part One — 1. Understanding ConflictWhy the Israeli-Palestinian Case?The Research ProblemFrom Epistemological Queries toMethodological StrategiesEmpirical MaterialOutline of the Thesis811142. Conflict Research and Constructivism:An Agent-Structure Approach16(Un)Ending ConflictThe Problem of Agent and StructureFramework for the Analysis of Reframingand Resolving ConflictConclusion34616253141— Part Two — 3. Frames and Structures of Conflict45Adversarial Perceptions and Self-ImagesDomestic and International StructuresConclusion4550544. Understandings of the Israeli-Palestinian ConflictIsraeli and Palestinian Elite Perceptions of the ConflictEmbedded Conflict: The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict in theDomestic and International ArenasConclusion56566781
— Part Three — 5. Framing and Reframing Conflict87Time and ChangeRipeness and Timing De-escalation: A CritiqueReframing ConflictConclusion878992976. The Road to Madrid - A Turning Point?98The IntifadaReframing the Conflict?Readiness to Negotiate?Conclusion98108119127— Part Four — 7. Negotiating and Interpreting Political ‘Realities’Understanding Negotiation in Theory and PracticeStructural Parameters of NegotiationSituated Strategies of Negotiation and MediationNegotiation as a Communication and Transformation ProcessConclusion8. Public DiplomacyCompetitive Frames of NegotiationIn the Domestic Arenas: Peace vs. ViolenceThe Negotiation Process: In Search of Focal PointsNegotiation Strategies: Track One and American MediationConclusion9. Two-Track DiplomacyMixture of Problem-Solving and CompetitiveFrames of NegotiationIn the Domestic Arenas: Negotiating DuringAntagonistic OppositionThe Negotiation Process: Constructing NewPolitical RelationsNegotiation Strategies: Two Tracks and Pure 56158161162164171178184
10. Trilateral DiplomacyCompetitive Frames of NegotiationIn the Domestic Arenas: Fading Confidencein the Peace ProcessThe Negotiation Process: De/Re-Constructingthe Negotiation Strategies: Track One and Principal MediationConclusion187187192195200207— Part Five — 11. (Un)Ending ConflictA Strategic-Interactive Model for the Empirical Analysisof Reframing and Resolving ConflictImplications for Conflict ResearchThe Israeli-Palestinian Conflict (Un)Ending: Beyond the Appendix One213213225227231U.N. Security Council Resolution 242U.N. Security Council Resolution 338Appendix Two233Declaration of Principles on Interim SelfGovernment ArrangementsReferencesPrimary SourcesSecondary Sources241241249
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSIn my understanding of academic research, it is about travelling inboth a theoretical and an empirical sense. During my many years ofresearch, I have been fortunate to have met a number of people whohave contributed and supported me on this ’journey’ of writing adoctoral thesis. I would like to thank Professor Christer Jönsson, mysupervisor, who has over the entire period supported my researchendeavours. He has not only commented, read and re-read mymanuscript but also afforded me the privilege of working with himon two co-authored articles. I also want to express my sincereappreciation to Professor Lars-Göran Stenelo, who has not onlycontributed comments on various drafts but also provided constantencouragement and support during the ‘ups and downs’ of my workas a doctoral student.I appreciate the efforts of all those who, despite their hecticschedules, took the time to read the preliminary manuscript. Mythanks go to Dr Mats Sjölin and Annika Björkdahl, who at the ‘finalseminar’ provided me with several helpful comments and suggestionsfor improvements and clarifications. Professor Lennart Lundquistcontributed constructive comments and helped me to clarify mythoughts on the problem of agent and structure. I extend mygratitude to the many insightful comments from my sister MarianneAggestam, who imparted a sociological perspective to my work; DrAdrian Hyde-Price, who shares my interest in war and peace;Dr Catarina Kinnvall, who read the manuscript with great enthusiasmand returned it with detailed comments; Lena Rising, for her clarifying comments; and Erika Svedberg and Dr Annica Young-Kronsell,not only for their comments but also for being my colleagues inanother exciting academic project, the organisation of a ninternational conference on feminist perspectives on internationalrelations in 1996, together with Dr Minna Gillberg and Astrid Hedin.Special thanks also go to Dr Ole Elgström, who recently returnedfrom New Zealand but still took the time to read and give detailedcomments on the final draft. Finally, I am grateful to MikaelSundström, for assisting and helping me with all the technical detailsof figures and cover; and to Connie Wall , who on short notice waswilling to copy-edit the manuscript. There are many more people atthe Department to whom I collectively want to express my gratitude
and appreciation for ‘being there’ in daily chats about our concernsand happiness throughout all my years as a doctoral student. Thankyou all!There are also a great number of people who have contributedcomments at conferences of ISA, ECPR, and IACM, and during myresearch visits to the Carter Center in Atlanta, and the Universities ofToronto, Syracuse and Bir Zeit. Of these research visits, a longer onewas spent in 1995 at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, where theDepartment of International Relations provided a vibrant, stimulatingintellectual environment. I would like to thank Professor RaymondCohen, who in many ways illustrated how exciting the research fieldof negotiation can be and provided a constant source of academicinspiration; Professor Yaacov Bar-Siman-Tov, for the many intriguingtalks on the problems of the transition from war to peace; andProfessor Sasson Sofer for encouraging me to write about diplomacy,which resulted in an Occasional Paper for the Leonard Davis Institute.On my ‘research journey’ I have been fortunate to have had twoclose ‘travel companions’—Magnus Österholm and Lisbeth Aggestam.Magnus, as a true computer scientist, has challenged me on definitionsand the logic of various drafts. He has also been a source of dailysupport and love. My twin sister Lisbeth is not only very close to mebut also a professional colleague as a doctoral student in politicalscience at Stockholm University. Our professional twin-ship hasenabled us not only to be each other’s fiercest critic but also toengage in joint research on a project on regional conflicts. Finally,my parents, Gun and Gunnar, and my brother Anders, havethroughout my research in various ways been engaged and supportive.My study of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has in many ways been anintellectual challenge. In 1997, when the Middle East peace processhad entered what seemed to be an intractable deadlock, I organisedtogether with Khaled Bayomi, Professor Jan Hjärpe and Dr MagnusPersson an international conference on the peace process and futurevisions of the Middle East which gave us reasons to be optimisticabout the future. One motivating force behind this study is my longheld desire to understand how Salaam/Shalom can be realised in theMiddle East. In this regard, I want to thank all those people whotake part in the endeavour to transform the Israeli-Palestinian conflictand for sharing their personal experiences with me in interviews. Mythanks go to Cordelia Edvardson (Svenska Dagbladet) and NathanShachar (Dagens Nyheter) for illuminating discussions after the Israelielections in 1999 on the future peace process.
Financial support for this study was graciously granted by theDepartment of Political Science and the Social Sciences of LundUniversity, the Swedish Foreign Ministry, the Olof Palme Foundation, Lars Hierta’s Foundation, Benjamin Sperling Foundation, theRoyal Academy of Humanities in Lund, the Foundation of Siamon,the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, and the CrafoordFoundation.Karin AggestamLund, 31 August 1999
LIST OF IGOISGANGONUGOPECPAPCPPISGAPFLPPLOPNCPPPUNUNLUN SCRUSCommon Foreign and Security PolicyCentral Intelligence AgencyDeclaration of PrinciplesDemocratic Front for the Liberation of PalestineEuropean CommunityEconomic Cooperation FoundationEuropean Political CooperationEuropean UnionForskningsstiftelsen for studier av Arbeidsliv,Fagbevegelse og Offentlig PolitikkGeneral Assembly ResolutionGulf Cooperation CouncilIsraeli Defence ForcesInter-Governmental OrganisationInterim Self-Government AuthorityNon-Governmental OrganisationNational Unity GovernmentOrganisation of the Petroleum Exporting CountriesPalestinian AuthorityPalestine Communist PartyPalestinian Interim Self-Government AuthorityPopular Front for the Liberation of PalestinePalestine Liberation OrganisationPalestine National CouncilPalestine People’s PartyUnited NationsUnified National LeadershipUnited Nations Security Council ResolutionUnited States
Part IIntroduction
Chapter IUNDERSTANDING CONFLICThe symbolic handshake in 1993 between two former arch-enemies,TIsraeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and Chairman YasirArafat, signalled a major shift in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Aspontaneous question raised by many, including myself, was how itwas possible for this shift to occur after many decades of conflict. Thisdoctoral thesis originates in a basic puzzle concerning the continuityand change in meaning and behaviour, and in strategies for resolvingan intractable conflict. In the past ten years, we have seen both anupsurge of violent conflicts, for example, in the Balkans, Rwanda andSomalia, and a transition from conflict to cooperation in severaldisputes in the Middle East, South Africa and Northern Ireland.The aim of this study is to elucidate the problematique of howadversaries in a seemingly intractable conflict, such as the IsraeliPalestinian case, reach a point where they seek to resolve the conflictthrough negotiations. Examination of the processes that lead to theacceptance of negotiation is particularly interesting when consideringthat most conflicts today tend to defy negotiated and mediatedsettlement (see, for instance, Wallensteen 1994; Zartman 1995). Onlyfifteen per cent of internal, civil conflicts, for example, end throughnegotiated settlements (Stedman 1996: 343). Moreover, only onethird of those negotiated agreements hold for more than five years,which points to the immense challenge of implementing negotiatedagreements in order to consolidate peace (Licklider 1995: 686). Theoscillation between cooperation and conflict in post-agreement phasesreveals the non-linear nature of resolving conflict and calls intoquestion many widely held understandings of how conflicts may bebrought to an end.The construction of theories about these multifaceted, complexcharacteristics of conflict has long posed a challenge to conflictresearchers. In this study, I seek to develop a theoretical frameworkbased on an agent-structure approach to the analysis of the intricate,dynamic and contradictory processes of reframing and resolvingconflict. I will begin by examining how continuity and change inconflict have been conceptualised in conflict theory. How are such
4 Introductionkey concepts as conflict settlement, resolution and transformationinterpreted and understood? Much of the research on conflict theoryhas focused on interstate war, crisis management, and the implicationsof the superpower rivalry for the international system and international conflict (Brecher 1996; Lebow 1981; Snyder and Diesing,1977; Spiegel 1992; Vasquez 1993). During the Cold War, forinstance, much research interest was given to the Arab-Israeli conflict,which generated theories about patron-client relations and conflictmanagement and settlement (Bar-Siman-Tov 1987; Ben-Zvi 1986;Shoemaker and Spanier 1984; Touval 1982). Some of thesetheoretical perspectives, such as game theory and cognitive theories,proceed from actor-oriented approaches, while other perspectives usestructural approaches, such as neo-realism. Most conflict theories,however, implicitly assume an interdependence between agent andstructure, but few studies have attempted to theorise about andanalyse the interplay between them. An analytical framework whichhighlights an agent-structure approach and situated actors may thuscontribute to an enhanced understanding of the interplay betweenintention, motivation, restraints and possibilities for resolving conflict.Hence, with such an analytical framework we will be able to improveknowledge of the intricate and dynamic processes of resolving conflictand contribute to the advancement of conflict theory.Why the Israeli-Palestinian Case?What we are doing today is more than signing an agreement, it is arevolution. Yesterday a dream, today a commitment. The Israeli andPalestinian people who fought each other for almost a century haveagreed to move decisively on the path of dialogue, understanding,and cooperation (Shimon Peres, Israeli Foreign Minister, on signingthe DOP in Washington 1993, Institute for Palestine Studies 1994:132):We know quite well that this is merely the beginning of a journeythat is surrounded by numerous dangers and difficulties. And yet, ourmutual determination to overcome everything that stands in the wayof the cause of peace—our common belief that peace is the onlymeans to security and stability, and our mutual aspiration for asecure peace characterized by cooperation (Mahmoud Abbas, Headof the PLO's Department of National and International Relations, onsigning the DOP in Washington, 1993, Institute for Palestine Studies1994: 134).
Understanding Conflict 5In September 1993, Israel and the signed the Declaration ofPrinciples on Interim Self-Government Arrangements. This eventmarked a dramatic shift from conflictual to cooperative interaction.The Israeli-Palestinian conflict dates back to the beginning of thetwentieth century and for much of this time it has been characterisedas a zero-sum conflict. Both parties have made exclusive claims on thesame territory and interpreted the intention of the ‘other’ as posingan existential threat to its own national survival. It was not until 1993that the Israeli government and the leadership broke the patternof intractability by explicitly recognising each other’s nationalexistence, which signalled a change in both the meaning of theconflict and the intention to resolve the conflict through a jointprocess of negotiation.Since one objective of this study is to advance theory, the Israeli Palestinian conflict is viewed as a critical case because extensiveempirical information is publicly available about the processes ofwhich a conflict may move from intractability to tractability. TheIsraeli-Palestinian conflict has several unique characteristics but shareswith other conflicts such features as, for example, the persistence ofenemy images, divided societies, and difficult implementation of andadherence to negotiated agreements. The conflict provides richempirically based insights into the intricate, complex and at timescontradictory processes of conflict and cooperation. This conflict mayalso be viewed as a ‘microcosm’ of international relations because ofthe high degree to which it is internationalised. This case thereforeprovides ample opportunity to advance theory since it contains severalsignificant features of conflict. Even though it might be problematicto define the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as an internal conflict, itnevertheless shares several characteristics with internal, civil conflicts,such as immense asymmetry between a state and a non-state actor aswell as resistance to a negotiated settlement because of the zero-sumcharacter of the conflict.1 Moreover, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is,as mentioned above, identified as an international conflict. Theconflict constitutes the core of the wider Arab-Israeli conflict, andvarious actors outside the region are involved in the conflict, such asthe European Union, the United Nations, Soviet Union/Russia andthe United States. Finally, for several decades the Israeli-Palestinian1 Brown (1996: 4) categories the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as an internal conflict,whereas Licklider does not (1995: 682). It seems to me that this problem ofcategorisation triggers a question regarding the usefulness of such a distinctionbetween inter- and intra-state conflict, particularly today, when most conflicts arecivil (Sollenberg, Wallensteen and Jato 1999).
6 Introductionconflict has been the object of extensive research interest and is one ofthe most well documented conflicts. Thus it is particularly well suitedfor the objective of this study, namely, to advance some contributionsto conflict theory.The case study covers a period of eleven years of Israeli-Palestinianrelations, 1988-98, for which various processes of change and conti nuity are analysed. The time period is based on two considerations.First, the Palestinian uprising, the intifada, is used as a political eventto situate the political actors. The period from 1988 to 1991 may beviewed as a pre-negotiation2 phase and is analysed in order to discernreframing, that is, perceptual, normative and behavioural processes ofchange in the conflict and to understand how the parties came toattend the Madrid Conference in October 1991—the first officialnegotiations between the Israelis and the Palestinians. Second, sincethe parties commenced negotiations in 1991, the analysis gives specialattention to how they endeavoured to resolve conflict. The empiricalanalysis ends with 1998 and includes most of the negotiations thattook place during the entire interim period. Officially, the interimperiod terminated on 4 May 1999, but the negotiation process hasbeen deadlocked since January 1999.In short, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict provides a current empiricalillustration of the challenges involved in reframing and resolvingconflict, which ultimately may generate an improved theoreticalunderstanding of conflict.The Research ProblemThis doctoral thesis attempts to address, both theoretically andempirically, the basic question of how the meaning of conflict maychange and how conflict may be resolved. The broad aims are: firs
Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and Chairman Yasir Arafat, signalled a major shift in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. A spontaneous question raised by many, including myself, was how it was possible for this shift to occur after many decades of conflict. This doctoral thes
16 Reframing in Action: Opportunities and Perils 323 17 Reframing Leadership 337 18 Reframing Change in Organizations 371 19 Reframing Ethics and Spirit 393 20 Bringing It All Together: Change and Leadership in Action 407 21 Epilogue: Artistry, Choice, and Leadership 431 Appendix: The Best of Organizational Studies 435 Notes 439File Size: 2MB
Jan 25, 2010 · The Israeli-Palestinian Water Conflict: An Israeli Perspective Haim Gvirtzman INTRODUCTION Harsh allegations are being raised against the State of Israel due to the dispute over water w
(Knowledge Attitudes & Practice [KAP] survey) is more popular among the Arab Israeli population than the Jewish Israeli population[1]. Smoking prevalence among Arab Israeli women is low in contrast to Jewish Israeli woman (6.2 vs. 20.0%). Smoking prevalence is higher among all populations in Israel
Functional vs Dysfunctional Conflict Functional Conflict- Conflict that supports the goals of the group and improves its performance Dysfunctional Conflict- Conflict that hinders group performance Task Conflict- Conflicts over content and goals of the work Relationship conflict- Conflict based on interpersonal relationships Process Conflict .
Karlinsky – The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict 2 2. Rashid Khalidi, Palestinian Identity: The Construction of Modern National Consciousness (New York: Columbia University Press, 1997), pp. 145-175 3. League of Nations – Mandate for Palestine (1922) ** Martin Bunton, The Palestinian-Israeli Conflict: A Very Short Introduc
Understand the importance of conflict resolution in teams and the workplace. Explain strategies for resolving or managing interpersonal conflict. Describe the causes and effects of conflict. Describe different conflict management styles, identify the appropriate style for different situations, and identify a preferred method of conflict resolution.
for conflict analysis. 2.1 Core analytical elements of conflict analysis . Violent conflict is about politics, power, contestation between actors and the . about conflict, see the GSDRC Topic Guide on Conflict . 13. Table 1: Guiding questions for conflict analysis . at conflict causes in Kenya in 2000. Actors fight over issues [, and .
ComponentSpace SAML for ASP.NET Okta Integration Guide 1 Introduction This document describes integration with Okta as the identity provider. For information on configuring Okta for SAML SSO, refer to the following articles.
