1. Who are the stakeholders of this negotiation? Who are the actors? Explain.
The stakeholder membership comprises of: Jonathan Pollard, an ex-convict, the US delegation, led by Bill Clinton, the then President of the United States. The negotiation process is composed of actors such as: Israel (led by Metanyahu), Palestine (led by Arafat) and the United States. The main items of agenda featured in the negotiation process are: resettlement of Palestinian refugees, peace and security resolutions.
2. What are the respective interests of the actors? Be specific.
Both Israel and Palestine are interested in settling on a peaceful memorandum that would ensure the restoration of peace and security between the two states. Social insecurity had been exacerbated by territorial conflicts. The situation that warranted an injunction from the most powerful intelligent sources was magnified in Israel. This led to a situation whereby public venues were the most targeted spots of launching attacks on civilians by terrorist groups and Islamist insurgents. Both Israel and Palestine have been working unsuccessfully for the adoption of a balanced memorandum of peace, security and resettlement of refugees (par. 5).
The interest of the United States in particular in the security and peace resolution process is to secure its national security data. There were fears that Jonathan Pollard had traded sensitive information on US nuclear programs to Iranian, Libyan and Israel’s defense forces. Thus the conflicts would worsen US’ national security through restructuring of anti-US militants if concrete counter-threat resolutions had not been implemented (par. 6).
3. What are the respective positions of the actors in relation to the negotiation items? Explain.
In the negotiations, Israel’s position was in opposition to resettlement of refugees in its West Bank region (par.8). According to Metanyahu, a peace and resettlement deal would be tantamount to liquidation of the Israel. Conversely, Palestine’s position was flexible in accommodating peaceful talks with Israel. From the article, Palestine’s commitment was demonstrated in Natan Sharansky. As a former prisoner of conscience, he had been appointed as Palestine’s Trade and Industrialization Minister and expressed more interest in quickening the negotiation process (par. 3). The United States’ position was committed to reviewing the peace process. Clinton was dedicated to reviewing Pollard’s case so as to force Israel into the consensus (par. 7).
Essentially; this is a tentative approach to facilitating negotiations through third party participants. Israel, which was uncomfortable in giving in to the security resolutions, found a substantive excuse that challenged the US authorities. Metanyahu is perceived to have been a beneficiary of crucial intelligence information that had been leaked from US security database (par. 6). In response to US provisions, Israel demanded the release of Jonathan Pollard, a CIA convict who had been linked to the espionage in US.
4. What can you say about the negotiation process, the communication and relationship? Be specific.
In the negotiations, roles and tactics were used to manipulate the outcome in favor of the negotiation process. For instance, Metanyahu received flowers from Yasser Arafat, a congratulatory call from the US secretary of State, Madeleine, on His 48th birthday (par.7). The soothing reception prompts the Israeli’s Prime Minister to review the possibilities of striking a new peace deal with Arafat. Both parties pledge to work for peace. The Wye Memorandum called for the return of the sparsely inhabited land in the West Bank and the immediate resettlement of the Palestinian refugees (par.7). Ordinarily, the delicacy of the subject forced Metanyahu to commit himself irretrievably. Consequently, Clinton was prompted to take a neutral position as he was already facing similar challenges at home. This approach would secure the process from possibilities of sabotage.
The concept of problem-solving interactive negotiations has been applied in the peace discussions. As neither sides showed value in getting to concessions mediated by individuals of a lower rank, both Metanyahu and Arafat opted for the participation of Bill Clinton in the final negotiation process (par. 11). Hence legitimate power/formal authorities play a central role in facilitating negotiation outcomes. Israel, through its Foreign Secretary Ariel Sharon, applied the concept of distributive information in the negotiation process. This was demonstrated with his meeting with Palestinian delegation that excluded President Arafat (par.12). In these cases, the negotiation and communication processes have been interactive, distributive and effective. Through the application of viable communication channels such as telephone calls and face to face communication, the process recorded positive outcomes.
