Power Sources in Palestine and Israel.

***Author's Comment:  The commentary below is not based on my personal opinion nor my political beliefs.  The information below was gathered from various sources and compiled together to fulfill the requirements of this assignment*****

Israel’s sources of power stem both from its internal resources and the resources of its allies.  In terms of its internal resources, Israel maintains a domineering military force in the region.  This military force allows Israel to occupy and confiscate privately owned land in the West Bank, and control over Gaza, are extremely oppressive, with Palestinians having minimal control over their lives.  Periodically men, women, and children are strip searched; people are beaten; women in labor are prevented from reaching hospitals (at times resulting in death); food and medicine are blocked from entering Gaza, producing an escalating humanitarian crisis. Israeli forces invade almost daily, injuring, kidnapping, and sometimes killing inhabitants.  Another power source of Israel is its geographic location.  Israel’s location makes it extremely difficult for other countries to get to the areas of dispute without running into Israel forces.  Its internal sources of power are vast and great and give Israel an edge over Palestine.
Israel also gets power from its allies.  The United States has long been an ally of Israel, giving Israel money and supplies needed to continue its occupation and control of the territory.  The assistance Israel gets from other countries enables it to continue to build its defensive network and have allied countries defend and support its initiatives.

Palestine is not without its own power sources.  Palestine has its own military force which, not as strong or as advanced as Israel’s, continues to oppose with a forceful effect Israel’s advancements and control of the region.  Palestinians have resorted to other means of power to attempt to fight against Israel.  Terrorism has had a pivotal role in fighting back against Israel.  There is constant terrorist activity in Palestine directed at Israel.  News reports daily of missile attacks, gunfire, and the like perpetrated by Palestinian terrorists and extremists.  Palestine has also used the United Nations as well as the global media to help it with its cause.  Highlighting the human rights abuses and the horrible military campaigns Israel launches against Palestine.  Using these resources, Palestine has transformed terror and knowledge into power in its fight against Israel.

Taking out “but” in Negotiations.

The word “but” is never a word people want to see in negotiations.  “But” is a barrier to anyone’s  success in a negotiation proceeding.   The use of this word tends to focus on the party’s position not their interests.  Positions, while valuable to understand, are never going to lead to solutions.  Instead of using the word “but”, the parties should think about why they feel a certain way.  Looking at the interests that make up their position, the parties will be better equipped to negotiate terms to a deal that will address those interests specifically.  By doing this, the parties maximize the benefits of the negotiation proceedings. 

            Additionally, the word “but” tends to be a conversation killer.  When people use the word “but” to explain their position, the other party is put off guard and no longer wants to discuss the issue.  It is because of this that the word “but” is so destructive in negotiation discussions.  It tends to destroy the other party’s interest in pursuing the negotiation.  The word “but” is synonymous with words like “however”, “nevertheless”, and “yet.”  They signify an objection to something without explaining why the objection is being lodged.  As discussed above, this tends to distract the parties from each other’s interests and serves as a road block to the parties addressing and coming to a finalization of a deal that encompasses the interests of the parties. 

            When parties focus more on their interests than their positions and explain why they want the things they want, the parties will gain mutual understanding and will be equipped to resolve the dispute in a manner that benefits all of the parties.

What Power Means in Negotiations.

Power, in terms of negotiations, means a party’s ability to bring about outcomes they desire or the ability to get things done the way they want them done.  Parties often struggle to obtain power because they believe, in error, that the person who holds the power dictates the resolution.  Parties who are constantly focused on the power imbalance are often blinded by it to their detriment.  No party to a negotiation is completely powerless.  Those who feel that they do not have the power in the relationship need to take a step back and look at the situation from a distance. 

Take for example a person injured in a car accident who is suing the insurance company that represents the driver at fault.  Right off the bat the injured person would feel that they have a power disadvantage.  The insurance company has so many resources, money, time to waste, experience, lawyers, etc.  What the injured person often fails to consider is the power that they have.  They were in the injured person, i.e. the non-at fault party to the accident.  They have absolutely no liability whatsoever regarding this accident.  This position can be turned into a power when the injured person confronts the insurance company that is either unwilling to compensate the injured person or, if willing to compensate, offers an amount far below what is proper and reasonable.  The injured person has resources such as the courts, the news, and fellow co-workers or friends.  Businesses have a lot vested in their reputations and our society has a tendency to regard big companies that hurt the “little guys” unfavorably.  Should information be publicized about the insurance company’s treatment of the injured person, the insurance company may lose a considerable amount of reputation and customers.  Furthermore, the threat of a public trial would expose all the dirt on the insurance company and reveal their unfair and improper treatment of the injured person. 

The example above clearly demonstrates that, although the parties have vastly different resources and bargaining positions, the party with what is perceived to be the least amount of power can gain a considerable amount of power by simply evaluating his or her circumstances and thinking outside the plaintiff’s box.  Parties that use information, resources, networks, and relationships to help influence the other party to the negotiation has the ability to even the playing fields.  However, parties should not focus on the balance or imbalance of their respective powers throughout the negotiation.  Acknowledgement of the power indifferences from the onset will enable the parties to evaluate strategies and tactics, but as the negotiation progresses, the parties should move away from the power imbalance and focus on ways to resolve the conflict and achieve their respective goals.

Different Types of Interests Prevalent in Negotiations

When parties enter into negotiation proceedings, it is fundamental to understand each party’s interests.  Negotiation commentators have identified four types of interests parties have: (1) substantive interests, (2) process interests, (3) relationship interests, and (4) interests in principle.  This blog will reflect on these types of interests to help parties better understand the fundamentals of conflict interests.

Substantive Interests.  Substantive interests are related to focal issues that are under negotiation and are issues of substance, i.e. the core reason the parties are in dispute.  After reading what substantive interests really are, it seems to me that it is very easy for a party to transform this substantive interest into their position.  Position is defined as your stance on an issue, i.e. I will not settle for anything less than $150,000.  When we move away from positions and focus more on interests, we tease out the reason why the party has that particular interest.  Take for example the position above about the party not wanting to settle for less the $150,000.  There are several possible reasons why that party has that position.  They may think that is what they need to be happy, conversely they may feel that $150,000 truly reflects the damage the other party caused and wants to make sure that the other party justly pays for their harm.  Substantive interests are the WHY’s of negotiation interests.  When the parties and the negotiator understand all of the parties’ substantive interests they are equipped with the knowledge necessary to get past their positions and deal directly with the needs of each party, resulting in a resolution of the issue.

Process Interests.  Process interests are related to how the negotiation unfolds.  Parties may pursue distributive bargaining because they enjoy the competitive game of wit that comes with hard ball negotiations.  Other parties may be interested in negotiation because it provides them the opportunity to voice their concerns in a process where they feel they have been silenced.  Process interests are very important to take into consideration when negotiating.  For instance, knowing that the other party just wants to argue and make this a competition will force you to change your tactic.  You may, instead of being very forthcoming with information, want to be very competitive as well, push back in an effort not to get trampled on.  On the other hand, when parties want to use negotiation as a place to voice their concerns, parties should respect and embrace moments where the other party makes clear the reasons that brought them to negotiation.  Engaging in conversations where people answer the “why’s” will almost always reveal solutions to problems that people who consistently refuse to explain their position rather than explaining why they have that particular position.  Furthermore, if the parties get some kind of satisfaction from the fulfillment of their process interests, the negotiation may very well lead to a resolution of the issue by means of a settlement agreement or just a withdrawal of the issue all together.  In summation, knowing why   the other party is at the negotiating table allows you to better understand the situation and will give you the tools necessary to understand, identify, and resolve the problem.

Relationship Interest.  Relationship interests are related to the value the parties place on their own relationships with one another.  Parties have reason to be concerned about the way the resolution of the dispute will affect their relationships.  There are two types of relationship interests: (1) intrinsic and (2) instrumental.  Intrinsic interests are the value that the parties place on the relationship itself, i.e. the personal meaning of the relationship to the parties.  This is especially important in divorce negotiations involving children.  The parents, although no longer wanting to remain married, have children that need to be taken care of by both parents.  Parents are often concerned about how the divorce will impact the children and each parent.  Parents with children will nevertheless have to maintain a relationship even after the divorce.  Instrumental relationships are the interests parties derive from the substantive benefits the parties derive from their relationship.  This can be when there is a dispute over the terms of a contract for which the parties, even after the dispute is resolved, will continue doing business together.  When the parties understand the value of the relationship at stake, they are better equipped to handle the problem and come to a resolution that will benefit them in all aspects rather than just addressing the issue that brought them to the negotiation in the first place.

Interests in Principle.  These are interests like fairness, what is right, and what is acceptable.  In essence this is the parties’ moral values in the outcome of the negotiation.  These interests, just like the ones commentated on above, can be very important in a negotiation proceeding.  Parties will not enter into a resolution to an issue that goes against their moral value.  The parties to the negotiation need to truly understand what the party needs and why they need it.  When the parties understand these two things it becomes very easy to identify what the parties think are fair or just.  These interests are very valuable and, if not addressed, could seriously jeopardize the likelihood of the negotiation’s success.

Negotiating Down Prices

For an assignment we were tasked with walking into a retail store and trying to negotiate down the price. Oddly, a lightning storm centered above my building the other night and a lightening bolt struck the building causing the destruction of my TV. I went to Best Buy to purchase a new TV. I had been looking for a new TV for a while and was well aware of what was out there and the prices I could expect. I knew that Best Buy was running an incredible special on a TV and Blue Ray package but had no need for the blue ray player. I went to Best Buy and talked to a salesman. I told him my situation and told him that I would purchase the TV for $130.00 less, taking into account the value of the Blue Ray player. After some time of discussing the matter and him getting in contact with the store manager, they declined my offer. I accepted their decline and did not purchase the TV. Instead, I chose a model that I preferred in the first place, at a lower cost, and purchased that. The negotiation may have been more successful should I have had more time to purchase the TV and not had such a pressing need. In the end, I saved money and purchased the same TV as the one offered, just slightly smaller but more practical.

Mutual Adjustments

The book Essentials of Negotiation discusses Mutual Adjustment. Reflecting on chapter one of the book, this is the most obvious aspect that will affect my professional life. Every person in the workforce deals with mutual adjustment. Some may deal with it in their dealings with co-employees, superiors, or customers. The most prevailing aspect of my professional career that I see this impacting is stating your salary. As I prepare for graduation and look at job openings I am amazed at the information that employers want from you. Specifically, are the requests for salary requirements. Apparently applicants are required to submit to the employer their salary requirements. This is completely opposite of any position I have had in the past and is one that troubles me. How do I go about stating what I am worth? I am concerned that in an effort to make myself employable, I will undervalue myself in an effort not to push away a potential employer. The book discusses situations like this and offers some guidance.


One needs to find a balance between honestly and trust in negotiating salary marks with employers. It is important to show some of your cards but not all. Likewise, it is important to know when and that you can show some of your cards. If you go out showing all of your cards it is likely that the employer will lowball you or give you the lowest number you gave them. However, if you chose not to show them any of your cards you run the risk of losing the employer’s interest because of your lack of cooperation. Finding a balance between what you want and what they want is critical. They want to employ someone at a reasonable cost and you want to work for a reasonable wage. Finding the positions of each side and understanding why they have that position will allow you to make an informed decision. Finding your bargaining range in a salary talk will help each side see the minimum and the maximum each party expects. By fining this range, it is easier for the parties to reach an agreement simply by meeting in between the two figures. This results in the employer getting an employee at a satisfactory cost and the employee getting a job at a wage that they feel comfortable.

I think that many of my professional encounters will require the use of this technique outside of salary talks. Negotiation has become a highly important skill that lawyers must not only learn but become experts in. By having the ability to see both sides of the coin and understand each party’s position, I will be better able to serve my client and bring about a solution to the problem that is best for my client.

Differences in Bargaining Techniques

There are two techniques of bargaining discussed in the Book Essentials of Negotiation. The first is called distributive bargaining. Distributive bargaining is a negotiation technique that is focused primarily on competition. A negotiator that employs this technique views the conflict through the eyes of an extreme competitor. The negotiator wants to win and wants the other party to lose. This technique is primarily used when there is a conflict over a fixed resource. This technique has its advantages as it is a very intimidating and scary tactic. Opponents of a negotiator employing this technique may be caught off guard to the point that they concede the victory to their opponent for the sole reason that they do not have the ability to respond. This technique is very valuable to a client seeking to win something over another person. Conceivably, this technique may be employed in divorce disputes, employment disputes, or even contracts for star athletes.


A client whose attorney utilizes this technique stands to gain much from it if it is done intelligently and efficiently. However, often times this technique does not serve to preserve relations or even yield the results the client wants. Attorneys using this technique may make their clients vulnerable to losses which might cause more problems than the ones currently on the table. For example, in an employment dispute, if the attorney representing the employer refuses to budge on his settlement figure for the ex-employee, he may subject his client to even more liability should the case escalate and proceed to trial. Employing a win-lose technique opens the door to loss should the other party not back down. Furthermore, attorneys using this technique may not be able to see the other side’s point of view if their attention and focus is only on winning at any cost. They may not be able to see alternatives that yield positive results for both parties. Attorneys should be hesitant to use this technique and, when choosing to employ this technique, make sure that they do not subject their client to additional liability.

The second bargaining technique is called integrative bargaining. This technique is focused on finding a result that is amicable to both parties. Attorneys using this method look to win-win strategies or techniques. They attempt to find solutions so that both parties can do well and achieve their respective goals. This technique involves identifying additional options or finding unique ways to handle the problem. Attorneys using this method think outside of the box. They are not driven by competition, but rather results. Moreover, the results that the attorneys are focused on are positive results for both parties. This method, unlike the distributive bargaining method, does not tend to destroy relationships. Rather this method fosters relationships and allows parties to resolve conflicts without adding more emotion and anger because one party will not budge.

This method has great advantages in that it benefits both parties but it is not without its costs. Attorneys using this method may overlook other options that put their client in a better position simply because they want the other side to walk away happy as well. Some problems are not easily solved and others are never solved with both parties happy. Using this method, an attorney may compromise his or her client’s position simply by being too accommodating. This is not to say that all attorneys should walk away from this approach and adopt the former discussed. Rather, attorneys should consider finding a medium between the two. By doing this, attorneys will be able to be relationship conscious while preserving their client’s interests and positions. In the end, there is no real good solution or method to negotiation. Attorneys should try to be flexible and accommodate where they can and should be mindful of the times that they cannot budge on certain issues. Budging on an issue simply to resolve the dispute may not always be in the best interest of the client and will almost always result in a malpractice claim being filed against the attorney.

The Method of "Tell Me More"

The process of “tell me more” is very helpful when attempting to understand a person’s thoughts or feelings. When you ask a person to “tell me more” you get more information than you otherwise would have gotten from the individual. After using this method I asked the individual how it made them feel. They responded that it made them feel like I was more engaged and interested in their conversation. They were more willing to tell me more information because they felt that I actually cared and wanted to know.

I think that negotiators and lawyers in general can learn a lot from this process. Our profession relies heavily on information given to us. That is, we rely on information given to us by our colleagues, our clients, our employers, and the court in the handling of our cases and the strategies we employ. Prying more into topics by saying “tell me more” allows you to gain insight that you may not have otherwise gained. It may lead to clients telling you more information that, while they felt was unimportant, is critical to the case at hand. Practitioners should rely on this method and employ it often.

Separating Emotion to Understand Concern; Active Listening

Prior to the first week of class I handled a dispute with a client over the work performed by the attorney I work for. The client was very upset that the attorney was not contacting them as much as they wanted them to about the progress of the case. In this instance it was concerning the Judge’s granting of a particular motion. We had previously informed the client that we would contact them as soon as the Judge ruled on the motion. However, the Client did not understand that the process of getting a ruling on a motion could take several weeks depending on the Judge’s caseload. The Client was concerned that we were avoiding him. Asking more about why he felt that way I was able to determine that he thought that us avoiding him meant that we had bad news about the case and that he just wanted to make sure that we were still confident in the success of our case. Listening to his concerns and understanding why he had those concerns has helped us in our future correspondence with the client. We, rather than get frustrated with daily calls, have determined that all the client wants was our reassurance. Since we reassured the client, the client has become more open to waiting for a ruling and has become more confident that this case will yield a positive outcome for him.

Blogging Exercise # 1

In reflecting on Chapters 1-3 of Getting To Yes I find it very interesting the author’s approach to problem resolution. Many people can’t help but to view problems from their position in the dispute. Many people can’t see the other side’s point of view because they are not focused on the other party’s interests but rather their position. When, as the author suggests, people listen to the other party and understand their interests, they are better able to understand their position. If you know why a person has a certain position, while it may not help you to agree with that position, it may allow you to better solve the problem by means of a compromise. A compromise is only possible if you understand the other person’s concerns, i.e. interests. Once you understand these concerns, you can address them when attempting to solve the problem. If you do not open the dialogue so that the parties understand each other’s interests, then a successful compromise or agreement is harder to achieve.


Furthermore, understanding that this is a conflict between two persons with emotions and interest of their own, both within the context of the dispute and outside of the dispute, helps people to better communicate. Once you understand that you are engaging in a conflict with another person and understand that person it places a certain emotional dynamic into the mix that may be helpful. Additionally, in instances where emotions are running high in a dispute, for example a divorce, it is helpful to separate the emotions from the problem, as emotions tend to blind people of solutions to their problems.