| dc.description.abstract | This thesis is a comparative analysis of the peace negotiations between Israel and Egypt, and Israel and Syria. The objective of the study is to explain why Israel managed to obtain a peace agreement with Egypt, but not with Syria. The two cases are seemingly similar in content and the parties’ positions towards each. The major difference lies in the negotiation outcome; while Egypt achieved a peace agreement and regained the control over the Sinai Peninsula, Syria is without a peace agreement and still claims sovereignty over the Israeli occupied Golan Heights.
The examination focuses on the time periods 1977-1979, when the Israeli-Egyptian negotiations were undertaken, and 1991-2000, when Israel and Syria conducted their long period of peace talks. Relying on negotiation theory in order to explain the negotiation outcomes, I have structured the thesis around three explanatory factors. The first is bargaining strength which constitutes five sub-categories that is directed towards negotiation tactics. These are; degree of impatience, risk of breakdown, inside option, asymmetrical information, and issue delinkage. All of the five categories represent tactical behaviours that determine the party’s bargaining strength and may be employed to take advantage of the opponent. These behaviours are directed to influence the opponent in an attempt to achieve the best possible agreement. In addition to the bargaining strength, I explore the role of the mediator. In both negotiations the US worked as a mediator between Israel and the Arab states. As a powerful third party with close connections to Israel, the US may have affected the negotiation outcome. The final explanatory factor is concentrated towards the Israeli public opinion. This factor is further divided into two subcategories; commitment tactics and domestic politics. The former constitutes a behaviour tactic in order to create credibility behind a party’s negotiation position, and the latter is a simplified form of Putnam’s two-level game.
The findings from this examination indicate that Israel, to a certain degree, employed the same negotiation tactics in both peace negotiations. However, the major difference seems to be that while Egypt was affected by the negotiation tactics, Syria occurred indifferent towards the Israeli behaviour. Another difference that seemed to be crucial for the Israeli position was the public’s attitude towards the Israeli withdrawal from the Golan Heights. While Israeli public supported the territorial concession of the Sinai Peninsula, they opposed the concessions of the Golan Heights. | eng |