IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wsi/ijitdm/v10y2011i01ns021962201100421x.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Negotiating The Israeli–Palestinian Controversy From A New Perspective

Author

Listed:
  • T. L. SAATY

    (Joseph M. Katz Graduate School of Business, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, 15260, USA)

  • H. J. ZOFFER

    (Joseph M. Katz Graduate School of Business, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, 15260, USA)

Abstract

In most long-lasting conflicts, each party's grievances increase while the concessions they are willing to make decline in number, quality, and perceived value. Both parties lose sight of what they are willing to settle for, generally exaggerate their own needs, and minimize the needs of the other side over time. But, it is precisely the matter of trading that needs to be made more concrete and of higher priority for both sides, if a meaningful resolution is to be found. Without a formal way of trading off the concessions and packages of concessions, both sides are likely to suspect that they are getting the short end of the bargain. After the parties have agreed to a trade, very specific binding language about the terms of the agreement, clear implementation policies, and outside guarantors are needed. The worth of the concessions traded, as perceived by both the giver and receiver, need to be accurately determined and recorded. All of this requires going beyond verbal descriptions of the concessions to more broadly include their economic, social, geographic, humanitarian, and historical worth. It is critical that all of these need to be translated into priorities derived in terms of the different values and beliefs of the parties. Priorities are universal and include the diversity of measures in terms of which economic, social, and other values are measured. The Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) provides a way to perform such an assessment with the participation of negotiators for the parties. It is a positive approach that makes it possible to reason and express feelings and judgments with numerical intensities to derive priorities. It has been used productively in the past to deal with the conflicts in South Africa and Northern Ireland and with other controversies throughout the world. With the assistance of panels of Israeli participants and Palestinian participants brought together in 2009 and 2010, AHP was applied for the first time to the Palestinian–Israeli conflict. The process makes it clear that moderation in different degrees by both sides is essential to arrive at acceptable agreements on concessions proposed and agreed upon by both sides. AHP makes it possible to evaluate moderate and extreme viewpoints and determine their effect on the trading of concessions. The results obtained encourage us to advocate its use in the negotiation process.

Suggested Citation

  • T. L. Saaty & H. J. Zoffer, 2011. "Negotiating The Israeli–Palestinian Controversy From A New Perspective," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 10(01), pages 5-64.
    • Handle: RePEc:wsi:ijitdm:v:10:y:2011:i:01:n:s021962201100421x
    DOI: 10.1142/S021962201100421X
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/S021962201100421X
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1142/S021962201100421X?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Thomas L. Saaty & Luis G. Vargas, 2006. "Decision Making with the Analytic Network Process," International Series in Operations Research and Management Science, Springer, number 978-0-387-33987-0, April.
    2. Thomas L. Saaty, 2006. "The Analytic Network Process," International Series in Operations Research & Management Science, in: Decision Making with the Analytic Network Process, chapter 0, pages 1-26, Springer.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Ali Aghazadeh Ardebili & Elio Padoano & Antonella Longo & Antonio Ficarella, 2022. "The Risky-Opportunity Analysis Method (ROAM) to Support Risk-Based Decisions in a Case-Study of Critical Infrastructure Digitization," Risks, MDPI, vol. 10(3), pages 1-22, February.
    2. Ester Guijarro & Cristina Santadreu-Mascarell & Beatriz Blasco-Gallego & Lourdes Canós-Darós & Eugenia Babiloni, 2021. "On the Identification of the Key Factors for a Successful Use of Twitter as a Medium from a Social Marketing Perspective," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(12), pages 1-15, June.
    3. Babak Daneshvar Rouyendegh & Asil Oztekin & Joseph Ekong & Ali Dag, 2019. "Measuring the efficiency of hospitals: a fully-ranking DEA–FAHP approach," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 278(1), pages 361-378, July.
    4. Clara Champalle & James D. Ford & Mya Sherman, 2015. "Prioritizing Climate Change Adaptations in Canadian Arctic Communities," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(7), pages 1-25, July.
    5. Afsaneh Afzali & Soheil Sabri & M. Rashid & Jamal Mohammad Vali Samani & Ahmad Ludin, 2014. "Inter-Municipal Landfill Site Selection Using Analytic Network Process," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 28(8), pages 2179-2194, June.
    6. Baffoe, Gideon, 2019. "Exploring the utility of Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) in ranking livelihood activities for effective and sustainable rural development interventions in developing countries," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 197-204.
    7. Sedigheh Meimandi Parizi & Mohammad Taleai & Ayyoob Sharifi, 2022. "A GIS-Based Multi-Criteria Analysis Framework to Evaluate Urban Physical Resilience against Earthquakes," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(9), pages 1-31, April.
    8. Nikola Kadoić & Nina Begičević Ređep & Blaženka Divjak, 2018. "A new method for strategic decision-making in higher education," Central European Journal of Operations Research, Springer;Slovak Society for Operations Research;Hungarian Operational Research Society;Czech Society for Operations Research;Österr. Gesellschaft für Operations Research (ÖGOR);Slovenian Society Informatika - Section for Operational Research;Croatian Operational Research Society, vol. 26(3), pages 611-628, September.
    9. Chi-Yo Huang & Pei-Han Chung & Joseph Z. Shyu & Yao-Hua Ho & Chao-Hsin Wu & Ming-Che Lee & Ming-Jenn Wu, 2018. "Evaluation and Selection of Materials for Particulate Matter MEMS Sensors by Using Hybrid MCDM Methods," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(10), pages 1-35, September.
    10. Oryani, Bahareh & Koo, Yoonmo & Rezania, Shahabaldin & Shafiee, Afsaneh, 2021. "Barriers to renewable energy technologies penetration: Perspective in Iran," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 174(C), pages 971-983.
    11. Ravi Kumar Gedela & K. Krishna Mohan & V. Kamakshi Prasad, 2018. "Application of BOCR models in service oriented architecture (SOA): study on model validation through quantification for QoS considerations," International Journal of System Assurance Engineering and Management, Springer;The Society for Reliability, Engineering Quality and Operations Management (SREQOM),India, and Division of Operation and Maintenance, Lulea University of Technology, Sweden, vol. 9(6), pages 1346-1354, December.
    12. Roberto Cervelló-Royo & Marina Segura & Regina García-Pérez & Baldomero Segura-García del Río, 2021. "An Analysis of Preferences in Housing Demand by Means of a Multicriteria Methodology (AHP). A More Sustainable Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(14), pages 1-16, July.
    13. Jing-Wei Liu & Che-Wei Chang & Yao-Ji Wang & Yi-Hui Liu, 2022. "Constructing a Decision Model for Health Club Members to Purchase Coaching Programs during the COVID-19 Epidemic," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(20), pages 1-13, October.
    14. Patricija Bajec & Danijela Tuljak-Suban, 2022. "A Strategic Approach for Promoting Sustainable Crowdshipping in Last-Mile Deliveries," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(20), pages 1-17, October.
    15. Babak Daneshvar Rouyendegh & Kazim Topuz & Ali Dag & Asil Oztekin, 2019. "An AHP-IFT Integrated Model for Performance Evaluation of E-Commerce Web Sites," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 21(6), pages 1345-1355, December.
    16. Starr, Morgan & Joshi, Omkar & Will, Rodney E. & Zou, Chris B., 2019. "Perceptions regarding active management of the Cross-timbers forest resources of Oklahoma, Texas, and Kansas: A SWOT-ANP analysis," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 523-530.
    17. Kuliš Marija Šiško, 2020. "Selection of Project Managers: An Overview," Business Systems Research, Sciendo, vol. 11(2), pages 99-116, October.
    18. J. Hummel & John Bridges & Maarten IJzerman, 2014. "Group Decision Making with the Analytic Hierarchy Process in Benefit-Risk Assessment: A Tutorial," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 7(2), pages 129-140, June.
    19. Thomas Saaty & Luis Vargas, 2012. "The possibility of group choice: pairwise comparisons and merging functions," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 38(3), pages 481-496, March.
    20. Shahid Rasheed & ChangFeng Wang & Bruno Lucena, 2015. "Risk Leveling in Program Environments—A Structured Approach for Program Risk Management," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(5), pages 1-24, May.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wsi:ijitdm:v:10:y:2011:i:01:n:s021962201100421x. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Tai Tone Lim (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.worldscinet.com/ijitdm/ijitdm.shtml .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.