The Israeli boarding of the latest Gaza destined flotilla this week, which has sparked the International outcry regarding the intolerable action on Israel’s part, will spur numerous proposals and plans for international action and sanctions against Israel. But will anyone seize the moment to use this event to set forth a new approach to making progress toward a path to resolving this decades long conflict? No.
The Israelis and Hamas-governed Gaza Palestinians are locked into their well-practiced and behaviorally conditioned stimulus-response mentality. They are not likely to find a solution as they are both doing the exact opposite of the old joke about “looking for their keys under the street-lamp because the light is better over here”. They are both looking for their solutions in the dark with blind-folds on and both hands tied behind their backs.
The international community is divided among countries that advocate the complete destruction of Israel, that support the right of a nation to protect itself by all means necessary (which oddly can apply to either party in this conflict), and those countries that counsel that only a diplomatic solution will be able to settle the dispute. The first two positions do nothing to resolve the conflict as they are the conflict; and the diplomacy approach has demonstrated its efficacy for this situation by essentially failing to do more than produce occasional and sporadic lulls in the conflict.
What then to do, how do you find a resolution to the Israel – Palestinian dispute?
An alternative to diplomacy, to sanctions, to threats or the continuation of madness might be contracts. A contracts approach could be used in smaller instances, on manageable issues and between any particular parties that can help play a role in breaking through the impasse brick by brick. The concept of using contracts to resolve the conflict may not be clear to some; but it offers a number of advantages, not the least of which it is an essential underpinning of any diplomatic approach that is chiefly espoused by most nations.
Other advantages of the contracts approach include allowing different parties to address their own interest-centric needs directly and specifically, it allows multiple issues to be dealt with simultaneously and without being contaminated by side issues or other groups, it allows for small steps to be made without being held hostage to negotiations on some unrelated or a currently unresolvable issue; and it requires each party to clearly define the conditions of the agreement.
It is this last part that makes the most difference. In addition to detailing the points of the contract agreement, the contract specifies the responsibilities, consequences and penalties that go into effect should the contract be broken. This advantage contains within it one of the motivating forces that helps invest the participating parties with self-interest in complying with the contract.
If you don’t think it would work, consider how a contract between Turkey and Israel might be able to deal with their current problem of the Gaza blockage versus the delivery of humanitarian aid. What would Israel require of Turkey to provide aid delivery and what consequences would Turkey be held to if they failed to fulfill the contractual terms and conditions? Likewise what would Turkey expect of Israel, if they did not allow for delivery of humanitarian aid under the terms and conditions of the contract?
Establish a contract on this issue, put it into effect and then there is one less brick in the wall. Keep weakening the wall brick-by-brick and eventually the impasse is broken.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment