1. The Israeli people view the conflict as a matter of security and defense. They believe in their right to the land of Israel due to their history and identity tied to it:

            “Eretz Israel (the Land of Israel) was the birthplace of the Jewish people. Here their spiritual, religious, and political identity was shaped. Here they first attained statehood, created cultural values of national and universal significance and gave to the world the eternal Book of Books.”^[1]

Israel is constantly defending themselves from hateful terrorist attacks produced by the Hamas terrorist group and Palestinian people. Due to this, they view themselves in a constant state of defense for the security of their citizens, sovereignty, land, and identity:

            “The absence of governmental institutes and effective law-enforcement mechanisms, the rule of Hamas in the Gaza Strip, the ongoing activity of murderous organizations throughout all the territories of the Palestinian Authority, the absence of a legal system which meets the basic criteria of a democratic government - all these are factors which deter us from moving forward too hastily.”^[2]

Although they are determined to hold their position against terrorism, they understand the dramatic negative effects of the violence on their citizens. They want peace so they may cultivate their society in a secure environment and free their people from more brutality:

            “We no longer, and you (Palestinian Prime Minister) no longer, have the privilege of clinging to dreams which are disconnected from the sufferings of our peoples, the hardships they experience daily and the burden of living under ongoing uncertainty, with no chance for change or hope. We want peace. We demand an end to terror, incitement and hatred. We are willing to make a painful compromise, rife with risks, in order to realize these aspirations.”^[3]

Security of Israel is the main priority of the state and because the security of the state has never been guaranteed under the constant bombardment of terrorist attacks by the Palestinian people, negotiations have moved slowly. Israel would blame the leadership of the Palestinian people as being impractical, disorganized, and corrupt as major reasons for the failure of previous negotiations.

2.         The history of Israel, according to the Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs, begins 3700 thousand years ago when Moses led his people away from the oppressive rule of Egypt’s King and to the promised land of Israel. The land was said to be promised to their forefathers Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. The Jewish community was united under the rule of King David and had political autonomy over the land until the destruction and conversion of Israel and Jerusalem into Palestine and Jerusalem (Alia Capitolina) by the Roman Empire. Although the Jewish Community survived, it proceeded to be ruled by various empires over 2000 years. Regardless of the abuse endured, the Jewish Community persisted. In the early 1900’s the Jewish community grew and influxes of migration of Jews around the world increased.

            Constant conflict between the Jewish community and Arab neighbors made Britain leave the fate of Palestine and Israel to the UN. The UN proposed two separate states, Israel accepted and the Arab community denied it. Israel was subsequently attacked by its Arab neighbors and in retaliation the Jewish Community took hold of the land they were promised and in 1948 they declared their independence. Immediately Arab neighbors attacked and the war of independence followed. When fighting and tensions decreased Israel opened its doors to all Jews and in doing so doubled the population of Jewish people compared to Arab people. Although treaties were signed, Israel’s Arab neighbors constantly inflicted terrorist act upon them and in 1967 they massively built up their armies on the Israeli border. In defense, Israel struck first and in the process of 6 days acquired enough land to double the size of Israel.

            On the Day of Atonement in 1973, Egypt and Syria launched a surprise attack and yet failed to succeed. Israel declares that it had tried and tried to establish peace through negotiations, but nothing came about until Lebanon retreated and Egypt signed the peace agreement in 1979. Many of the peace negotiations that would follow all fail, and according to Israeli interpretation, it was all due to the incapability of Palestinians to negotiate and manage their own people. The peace process failed on the account that terrorism and violence (including two Infatadas that the Israelis believe were both caused by Palestinians) never ceased and so compliance by both parties diminished.^[4] “Traditional Narrative” of the conflict based on Israeli views is based upon the idea that the Arab community encouraged the evacuation of their people from the Jewish state therefore causing the refugee problem and instigating the Israel-Palestinian conflict. But a “New Narrative” of history from the perspectives of various Israelis shows that they now account for some responsibility in causing the conflict.^[5]

3. The Jewish Community is connected through the common hardships the entire community has endured. They have been discriminated against, exiled, murdered, persecuted, and unwanted since even before their inception. Sovereignty of Israel and of a Jewish state is something the Jewish community has been fighting for, for thousands of years. Because of the historical lack of political autonomy and respect from neighboring countries, sovereignty is dire to the needs of the Jewish identity and security. The fixed sum of land is also important because it has historical value and they need a country big enough to house and protect its Jewish people. Because of this, it is explicit that if negotiations are to persist, Palestine will need to recognize Israel as a sovereign state and that the original land occupied by Israel will be left to them. Because the focus is on a Jewish state, popular sovereignty is a vital component on the table of negotiations. Israel wants to be established as a Jewish State and therefore will not negotiate on the terms of the right of return to Israel of refugees. The issue of popular sovereignty leads the Israeli people to favor two state resolutions over anything else.  Israel understands that each player has the right to veto on an agreement and therefore is willing to make sacrifices and risks to ensure that peace negotiations continue. (Information and Citations from Questions 2 and 5 and general information from book we read in class lead me to these conclusions)

4. The history of the Jewish people is what has fostered the shared identity of a culture that feels exiled from the world. They have constantly found themselves in the defensive position and so security of their homeland, identity, and culture is ingrained into every single Israelis life. Nationalism created by hardships shared by Jewish community all over the world aided in the huge migrations that followed after Israel’s independence. Their identity as “exiles” drives them to become a more security and religious oriented culture.^[6] Nationalism, culture, religion, and identity are all intricately connected to produce a security oriented country, determined to be a safe place for the Jewish community and a prosperous growing nation. This affects Israelis negotiating style as having a “safety first approach.”^[7] They feel as though they must constantly be on the defensive and therefore always ready to attack. Due to the security oriented style of negotiation, demand of the end of violence on the part of the Palestinian people and Hamas will be the first fundamental component that will enter negotiations. Also, because they have endured thousands of years of abuse and exile based on their beliefs, they place a grave importance of Israel remaining a Jewish state. This means that a two state resolution is the most feasible plan that the Israelis would approve of.

5.         "The Government will strive to shape the permanent borders of the State of Israel as a Jewish             state, with a Jewish majority, and as a democratic state, and will act to achieve this through negotiations and agreement with the Palestinians - conducted on the basis of mutual recognition, signed agreements, the Roadmap principles, cessation of violence and the disarming of the terror organizations."^[8]

            Israel’s resolution would first focus on two key ideas, one being that the resolution be based on a two state plan where “Israel is homeland to the Jewish people, so Palestine will be established as the homeland and the national answer for the Palestinian people, including the refugees.”^[9]  The second key idea is that these two newly created states will live “side by side in peace and security”^[10] where Palestinian and Israelis share interests of collective security for each other.  During the Taba Negotiations in 2001, both parties agreed upon the UN Security Council Resolution 242 and that the June 4, 1967 lines would be the basis for the borders between Israel and the state of Palestine. Israel would offer Palestine 100% of the Gaza Strip and about 94-97% (depending on settlements and different past agreements) of the West Bank to be handed over in a transition of about thirty six months.^[11] Palestine rejected the idea of the transition taking that long and so I suppose upon the condition that security of Israel is met, they would consider evacuating those settlements quicker.

6. Shuttle Diplomacy is regularly used when face to face contact with two opposing sides would seem to do more harm than good and it has its various advantages in producing peaceful outcomes. It allows for opposing sides to lower their defenses, gain trust, lengthen the negotiation process, gives time to develop though out and detailed responses, and it also allows for the mediator to take out the main component of high emotion from the negotiating process and it gives them the opportunity to make suggestions. The most successful example of shuttle diplomacy is the Israel-Egypt Peace Agreement of 1979, where mediation by then President of the United States, Jimmy Carter, resulted in the peace agreement.

            Shuttle diplomacy can also be used as a preliminary tactic for conference negotiation. As Heidi and Guy Burgess, writers of Shuttle Diplomacy/Mediated Communication, express; "By keeping the communication private and indirect, the parties will not feel a need to use the debating tactics they commonly use in public conversations, and will be able to build up a level of trust that could not have been developed in those circumstances. Once this trust and a certain level of mutual understanding is developed, then face-to-face and even a routine of communications can be started." I would consider shuttle diplomacy more of a preliminary tool to conference negotiation because issues can arise from having a third party acting as a mediator.            

First of all, communication among two parties is difficult enough, adding a third party adds complexity to the communication process and therefore there is a higher likely hood of miscommunication. Although its various effects of lengthening the process and having a third party able to suggest possible resolutions can be a positive thing, they can also have negative consequences. Because shuttle diplomacy is known to be lengthy, it can be used as a tool to drag out the prospect for peace and lengthen the process so they may burn out before they discuss the core issues of the conflict. Also, legitimacy and interest of the third party need to be concrete and transparent because they play a huge role in the direction the negotiations. The third party can sometimes add to the complexity of the personalities already in the conflict and push for their own ideas and interests, making peace harder to achieve.

            I think that all of these fundamental issues add to the failure of shuttle diplomacy to find peace in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It is important then for us to focus on both the strengths and weaknesses of shuttle diplomacy so we may use it as a preliminary tool to build trust and relaxation so then conference diplomacy and direct contact can take place. But in certain circumstances where conference negotiations are never feasible, then shuttle diplomacy has the capability of producing better outcomes.

1. The Israeli people view the conflict as a matter of security and defense. They believe in their right to the land of Israel due to their history and identity tied to it:

            “Eretz Israel (the Land of Israel) was the birthplace of the Jewish people. Here their spiritual, religious, and political identity was shaped. Here they first attained statehood, created cultural values of national and universal significance and gave to the world the eternal Book of Books.”^[1]

Israel is constantly defending themselves from hateful terrorist attacks produced by the Hamas terrorist group and Palestinian people. Due to this, they view themselves in a constant state of defense for the security of their citizens, sovereignty, land, and identity:

            “The absence of governmental institutes and effective law-enforcement mechanisms, the rule of Hamas in the Gaza Strip, the ongoing activity of murderous organizations throughout all the territories of the Palestinian Authority, the absence of a legal system which meets the basic criteria of a democratic government - all these are factors which deter us from moving forward too hastily.”^[2]

Although they are determined to hold their position against terrorism, they understand the dramatic negative effects of the violence on their citizens. They want peace so they may cultivate their society in a secure environment and free their people from more brutality:

            “We no longer, and you (Palestinian Prime Minister) no longer, have the privilege of clinging to dreams which are disconnected from the sufferings of our peoples, the hardships they experience daily and the burden of living under ongoing uncertainty, with no chance for change or hope. We want peace. We demand an end to terror, incitement and hatred. We are willing to make a painful compromise, rife with risks, in order to realize these aspirations.”^[3]

Security of Israel is the main priority of the state and because the security of the state has never been guaranteed under the constant bombardment of terrorist attacks by the Palestinian people, negotiations have moved slowly. Israel would blame the leadership of the Palestinian people as being impractical, disorganized, and corrupt as major reasons for the failure of previous negotiations.

2.         The history of Israel, according to the Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs, begins 3700 thousand years ago when Moses led his people away from the oppressive rule of Egypt’s King and to the promised land of Israel. The land was said to be promised to their forefathers Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. The Jewish community was united under the rule of King David and had political autonomy over the land until the destruction and conversion of Israel and Jerusalem into Palestine and Jerusalem (Alia Capitolina) by the Roman Empire. Although the Jewish Community survived, it proceeded to be ruled by various empires over 2000 years. Regardless of the abuse endured, the Jewish Community persisted. In the early 1900’s the Jewish community grew and influxes of migration of Jews around the world increased.

            Constant conflict between the Jewish community and Arab neighbors made Britain leave the fate of Palestine and Israel to the UN. The UN proposed two separate states, Israel accepted and the Arab community denied it. Israel was subsequently attacked by its Arab neighbors and in retaliation the Jewish Community took hold of the land they were promised and in 1948 they declared their independence. Immediately Arab neighbors attacked and the war of independence followed. When fighting and tensions decreased Israel opened its doors to all Jews and in doing so doubled the population of Jewish people compared to Arab people. Although treaties were signed, Israel’s Arab neighbors constantly inflicted terrorist act upon them and in 1967 they massively built up their armies on the Israeli border. In defense, Israel struck first and in the process of 6 days acquired enough land to double the size of Israel.

            On the Day of Atonement in 1973, Egypt and Syria launched a surprise attack and yet failed to succeed. Israel declares that it had tried and tried to establish peace through negotiations, but nothing came about until Lebanon retreated and Egypt signed the peace agreement in 1979. Many of the peace negotiations that would follow all fail, and according to Israeli interpretation, it was all due to the incapability of Palestinians to negotiate and manage their own people. The peace process failed on the account that terrorism and violence (including two Infatadas that the Israelis believe were both caused by Palestinians) never ceased and so compliance by both parties diminished.^[4] “Traditional Narrative” of the conflict based on Israeli views is based upon the idea that the Arab community encouraged the evacuation of their people from the Jewish state therefore causing the refugee problem and instigating the Israel-Palestinian conflict. But a “New Narrative” of history from the perspectives of various Israelis shows that they now account for some responsibility in causing the conflict.^[5]

3. The Jewish Community is connected through the common hardships the entire community has endured. They have been discriminated against, exiled, murdered, persecuted, and unwanted since even before their inception. Sovereignty of Israel and of a Jewish state is something the Jewish community has been fighting for, for thousands of years. Because of the historical lack of political autonomy and respect from neighboring countries, sovereignty is dire to the needs of the Jewish identity and security. The fixed sum of land is also important because it has historical value and they need a country big enough to house and protect its Jewish people. Because of this, it is explicit that if negotiations are to persist, Palestine will need to recognize Israel as a sovereign state and that the original land occupied by Israel will be left to them. Because the focus is on a Jewish state, popular sovereignty is a vital component on the table of negotiations. Israel wants to be established as a Jewish State and therefore will not negotiate on the terms of the right of return to Israel of refugees. The issue of popular sovereignty leads the Israeli people to favor two state resolutions over anything else.  Israel understands that each player has the right to veto on an agreement and therefore is willing to make sacrifices and risks to ensure that peace negotiations continue. (Information and Citations from Questions 2 and 5 and general information from book we read in class lead me to these conclusions)

4. The history of the Jewish people is what has fostered the shared identity of a culture that feels exiled from the world. They have constantly found themselves in the defensive position and so security of their homeland, identity, and culture is ingrained into every single Israelis life. Nationalism created by hardships shared by Jewish community all over the world aided in the huge migrations that followed after Israel’s independence. Their identity as “exiles” drives them to become a more security and religious oriented culture.^[6] Nationalism, culture, religion, and identity are all intricately connected to produce a security oriented country, determined to be a safe place for the Jewish community and a prosperous growing nation. This affects Israelis negotiating style as having a “safety first approach.”^[7] They feel as though they must constantly be on the defensive and therefore always ready to attack. Due to the security oriented style of negotiation, demand of the end of violence on the part of the Palestinian people and Hamas will be the first fundamental component that will enter negotiations. Also, because they have endured thousands of years of abuse and exile based on their beliefs, they place a grave importance of Israel remaining a Jewish state. This means that a two state resolution is the most feasible plan that the Israelis would approve of.

5.         "The Government will strive to shape the permanent borders of the State of Israel as a Jewish             state, with a Jewish majority, and as a democratic state, and will act to achieve this through negotiations and agreement with the Palestinians - conducted on the basis of mutual recognition, signed agreements, the Roadmap principles, cessation of violence and the disarming of the terror organizations."^[8]

            Israel’s resolution would first focus on two key ideas, one being that the resolution be based on a two state plan where “Israel is homeland to the Jewish people, so Palestine will be established as the homeland and the national answer for the Palestinian people, including the refugees.”^[9]  The second key idea is that these two newly created states will live “side by side in peace and security”^[10] where Palestinian and Israelis share interests of collective security for each other.  During the Taba Negotiations in 2001, both parties agreed upon the UN Security Council Resolution 242 and that the June 4, 1967 lines would be the basis for the borders between Israel and the state of Palestine. Israel would offer Palestine 100% of the Gaza Strip and about 94-97% (depending on settlements and different past agreements) of the West Bank to be handed over in a transition of about thirty six months.^[11] Palestine rejected the idea of the transition taking that long and so I suppose upon the condition that security of Israel is met, they would consider evacuating those settlements quicker.

6. Shuttle Diplomacy is regularly used when face to face contact with two opposing sides would seem to do more harm than good and it has its various advantages in producing peaceful outcomes. It allows for opposing sides to lower their defenses, gain trust, lengthen the negotiation process, gives time to develop though out and detailed responses, and it also allows for the mediator to take out the main component of high emotion from the negotiating process and it gives them the opportunity to make suggestions. The most successful example of shuttle diplomacy is the Israel-Egypt Peace Agreement of 1979, where mediation by then President of the United States, Jimmy Carter, resulted in the peace agreement.

            Shuttle diplomacy can also be used as a preliminary tactic for conference negotiation. As Heidi and Guy Burgess, writers of Shuttle Diplomacy/Mediated Communication, express; "By keeping the communication private and indirect, the parties will not feel a need to use the debating tactics they commonly use in public conversations, and will be able to build up a level of trust that could not have been developed in those circumstances. Once this trust and a certain level of mutual understanding is developed, then face-to-face and even a routine of communications can be started." I would consider shuttle diplomacy more of a preliminary tool to conference negotiation because issues can arise from having a third party acting as a mediator.            

First of all, communication among two parties is difficult enough, adding a third party adds complexity to the communication process and therefore there is a higher likely hood of miscommunication. Although its various effects of lengthening the process and having a third party able to suggest possible resolutions can be a positive thing, they can also have negative consequences. Because shuttle diplomacy is known to be lengthy, it can be used as a tool to drag out the prospect for peace and lengthen the process so they may burn out before they discuss the core issues of the conflict. Also, legitimacy and interest of the third party need to be concrete and transparent because they play a huge role in the direction the negotiations. The third party can sometimes add to the complexity of the personalities already in the conflict and push for their own ideas and interests, making peace harder to achieve.

            I think that all of these fundamental issues add to the failure of shuttle diplomacy to find peace in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It is important then for us to focus on both the strengths and weaknesses of shuttle diplomacy so we may use it as a preliminary tool to build trust and relaxation so then conference diplomacy and direct contact can take place. But in certain circumstances where conference negotiations are never feasible, then shuttle diplomacy has the capability of producing better outcomes.