Israel, Palestine, and Peace: Yeah, Right.

The goal between Israel and Palestine is peaceful resolution of several issues, like recognition of one another, borders, Jerusalem, and water rights, while maintaining the appearance of power in their respective cultures.  While the leaders of these nations are reasonable actors, the weight of their interests are exceptionally deep, and parts of their citizenry do not share the reason at the top.  That is not to say all the goals are valid, nor is it to say that all the citizens of these nations are unreasonable—that is far from true.  However, the stakes are high, and some actors are not willing to see change.

The conflict between Israel and Palestine is deeply rooted in history, tradition, and core beliefs.  However, the willingness of both nations to engage in some type of negotiations to form a two-state solution is a tremendous start.  The obvious problems today are that each side is attempting to wield some amounts of power, and the other side will not budge as a result.  There is no necessity to actually earn peace.  While most of the world looks on and hopes that negotiations go well, there is a much stronger impetus on saving face.  Openly conceding a point to the other side, or even showing weakness appears to be slap in the face to the greatest values that each society holds dear.  Timeline manipulations will not work.  Hardball moves will not work.  Nations like Iran, and subcultures in Palestine strongly believe that any peaceful concession is a loss.  Each nation having power in this struggle is not a positive for the negotiations in general, because while they would like to avoid war, they would prefer it to the appearance of even a slight one-sidedness.

Israel specifically wields power with general sense of backing from Western culture.  Many of the strongest military nations are pro-Israel.  Additionally, the housing project that was going up along a border was frozen for a time.  That said, the moratorium on that building was set to expire, which would cease negotiations talk.  It was supposed to give the feeling of power, but Palestine just wanted to walk away.  That is a power for them.  Ultimately, their lower concern of resolution is a power for each group in a way.

Palestine has an uncontrollable level of power because of violent attacks from non-government groups, however those types of attacks could actually increase with a deal, so it works against them as well.

Reflecting on Power

Power is somewhat complex in the details, but in general practice, it seems obvious.  Power is having the advantage, upper hand, or control in a negotiation.  A humorous “Non Sequitur” comic strip showed this phenomenon with a boss in a lavish room with a portrait of himself and giant desk with the title “The Man,” written on the nameplate.  The boss is saying “I found it saves a lot of time by taking the guesswork out of who’s going to win any disagreement.” That is power.  The authoritative source wields it, then wins.

Not all power derives from a boss position (though those benefits are many).  Though it feels hackneyed to my youthful senses of watching Saturday morning cartoons, it is true that knowledge is power. “Expert power” is a source of legitimate power from a unique knowledge of a subject.  In negotiations, this can occur if you have an expert on your side, or is possible to attain if one party just does not have the proper information (likely because of lack of discovery or just a failure to be fully prepared).  If ever there was a point to be prepared for a negotiation, expert power would be it.

Other sources of power—reward, coercive, legitimate, and referent—are based in a more pure form of preliminary structures giving one side an edge.  These “bosses” are the ones in charge, and as the rule makers (or rule upholders), they hold the cards.  They control the resources—money, supplies, time, etc.  But while coercive and legitimate seem to be key in the Non Sequitur joke, referent power is about respect for an authority figure, rather than fear.  This type of situation immediately feels like it will lead to the most good faith negotiations.  It creates trust and mutual goals.  This obviously differs from the iron hand of the coercive.

I suppose everyone is looking for a source of power in a negotiation, and we fear our opponent grabbing the power, instead.  The controlling party dictates a negotiation.  If one side has it all, they probably won’t be playing nice.  They will be busy getting everything.

Thinking about Interests

Thinking about interests is very difficult for me.  They are the negotiation.  The books outline what should b done in a very technical sense, but the importance of interests to a client are often unfathomable to those reading a text.  I understand the importance of knowing the basics, but the emotions of the greatest interests are difficult to understand just from a text.  However, it is only reasonable to look at the basic outline if there is any chance of bringing those emotions some sort of justice.  In every legal conflict, each side holds a position.  When those positions become interests, a negotiation can reasonably occur.  Interests are what each party wants to protect and take away from a legal battle.

The commonly known interests are substantive interests, process interests, and relationship interests.  Substantive interests are the easiest to identify in a negotiations.  These are the highlighted interests in financial issues—these are often the most visible issues to outside parties, and are often the easiest takeaway from a negotiation.  Process interests are how the negotiation occurs.  The style and ease of the negotiation can earn substantive interests, or make other negotiations in the future easier (or even accessible).  This is related to relationship interests which value—surprise surprise—the inherent relationship between the parties.  If the parties do not want to damage the relationship, that can change the structure of the negotiation.

Negotiations are layered with interests, and each party attributes different values to the interests a stake.  The key is to get each party the greatest benefit in his/her interest.  Interests are subject to change, but the deepest values are not something that a person will compromise.  However, attitudes can be shifted with just a shift in attitude or tone of a negotiation. 

Another great way to come together on interests is to generate alternatives.  Give up some interests to maximize your own interest gains, or concede issues for nonspecific goals.  If the opposing party gains on their key interests, you can collect later.  If other interests supercede the original, it allows an easier concession as well.

Interests are what they are.  They are the greatest values in a negotiation.  Most parts of a negotiation are nuances, but these are constantly on the front of our minds—if not occasional at the back when they change.  Parties can come to compromises or leverage equal interests, but they are what parties truly value.  It is so difficult to measure concessions of interests—because they are the subject matter.  No one wants to lose their greatest interests, and it is an attorney’s job to try to get the greatest interests locked down.

Going to see a lawyer? This is how to do it!

There is no reason to be embarrassed about a legal problem.  Many people feel uncomfortable with the legal process because it is foreign to them.  You are forced to trust a stranger with a very serious problem, and many stressful factors (besides the heart of the problem) will make the situation difficult.  I am sorry you have to go through that, but there are some important things to think about that will make the whole situation much easier for you.

First, when you have your lawyer, be honest.  To do the best for you, your lawyer must know all the facts.  It can be difficult to admit every detail, but it is much better to be prepared, rather than having only the opposition knowing a secret fact.  You and your lawyer have attorney-client privilege, so don’t be afraid to get the whole issue on the table—and get all the details out there.  It will serve you with the best result in the end.

Know what you want, and try not to think in abstracts.  What is the end game that you really want out of this case?  Is it to make as much money as possible, or keep as much money as possible?  What are the realistic numbers for you.  You may not have all the answers, but be prepared to lay out some realistic ideas, and also be prepared to adjust your financial interests.  When we think about law cases, we think about the end being justice.  In civil cases, the way to give justice is to reward money—so make sure you are have some real numbers that you want out of the process.  If you go in with unrealistic numbers, you will be disappointed.  One of the best ways to be pleased with an outcome is to be realistic.  Think about what you want and what you need, and know the difference.  You can go after both, but knowing which is which is very important.

One of the hardest things to do in any conflict is look at it from another angle.  As we entrench ourselves deeper into a conflict, it is human nature to examine facts and outcomes in the scope of being right.  I recommend you put yourselves in your opponent’s position.  Think about what they think.  This can give each party more understanding, less stress, and a more amicable way to agree—rather than a high stress, high worry competition, not knowing if you will get any benefits.

If this sounds like it is all about getting an easy outcome, that isn’t the case.  You can let your lawyer be the zealous advocate for you, trying to get everything possible, but when meeting your lawyer, don’t treat them like an opponent.  They are your guardian, your teammate, and your confidant.  Be realistic with them, and they can best fight for you.