Summary
The negotiation framework that, in Razek’s account, underpins the Middle East Peace Process and has dominated US foreign policy in the post-Cold War era, with the MEPP put forward as its ultimate example of solving intractable political crises (Thirty Years On: The Ruse of the Middle East Peace Process, lines 193-197).
Details
- Its good-faith requirement, as Razek states it: meaningful negotiation requires mutual interest in reaching a deal between two equal parties, on a commonly agreed basis for reaching an outcome (line 201).
- Razek argues the framework is fraught with challenges within a liberation struggle under military occupation, ultimately leading to its failure: the parties are not equal, the terms of reference are not mutual, there is no timeline, and the broker is not honest (lines 195-197, 199-251).
- Its term BATNA — best alternative to a negotiated agreement, what a party can maintain or gain if negotiations fail or never conclude — is Razek’s explanation of Israel’s conduct: Israel understood its BATNA would be superior to any offer Palestinians and brokers could make, so it dragged out the interim period (line 231).
Related pages
Thirty Years On: The Ruse of the Middle East Peace Process, Middle East Peace Process, Oslo Accords