Letters
"We would be naive to think, as the article suggests, that what stands in the way of peace is simply a better negotiation process."
-William Choslovsky '94
Palestinians Aren't Ready for Negotiation
I have lived in Israel for the past 42 years--through three wars, two intifadas
and repeated cycles of terror. The notion that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict
can soon be resolved by negotiation ("Mission Impossible?" Fall 2005) is a naive
and hopeless dream.
First, negotiation presupposes two responsible opposing entities. The
Palestinians lack both entity and responsibility. There [has been] no dominant
central authority--only a weak facsimile whose power base [was] shared by a
conglomeration of independent armed gangs accountable to nobody.
Second, negotiation contemplates give-and-take on both sides. Realistically,
Israeli-Palestinian negotiation would simply be a matter of how much Israel will
continue to give and concede. Cessation of terror and murder is not a legitimate
bargaining chip.
Third, if past experience is an indication, any resulting agreement will in any
event not be worth the paper it is written on.
A prerequisite for successful negotiation is the reformation of the Palestinian
psyche. This is the product of decades of indoctrination with a view toward one
goal--the elimination of the Jewish state and the concomitant justification of
the deliberate and indiscriminate slaughter of innocent men, women and
children.
If such indoctrination can somehow be reversed and the present and intense level
of hatred replaced by a measure of understanding and compassion, perhaps in a
generation or two the Palestinians will be ready for negotiation.
S. Ezra Austern '42
Kiryat Sefer, Israel
Gaza Withdrawal a Sleight of Hand
Professor Mnookin misreads the motives and consequences of Ariel Sharon's
withdrawal from the Gaza ("Mission Impossible?"). By abandoning territory he
cannot hope to keep without major casualties to the Israeli Army, he diverted
the world's attention from the massive construction of settlements and access
roads in the West Bank. No one who has seen, as I did in November, the
continued, accelerated construction of massive, new, illegal Israeli settlements
on the Palestinian land in the West Bank can believe that Sharon or the Israeli
government has any intention of forcing these new settlers to quit the new
settlements with an easy commute to Jerusalem. Until you travel [these roads]
and see the settlements they link together, you cannot understand the master
plan which Sharon is implementing.
While American leaders in the administration and elsewhere applaud Sharon's
self-sacrifice in leaving Gaza, they fail to recognize that his real objectives
were to control and never surrender Jerusalem, the fertile parts of the West
Bank and the water of the Sea of Galilee. All of this is non-negotiable.
John H. McGuckin Jr. '71
San Francisco
Terrorism Never Mentioned
Dick Dahl's article in the fall issue, "Mission Impossible?" describes how
members of the HLS Program on Negotiation seek to apply their negotiating skills
to the Israeli-Arab conflict. According to the article, the program participants
emphasize "empathy" and the desire to "get a deep sense of what drives the
people who are involved." The article then devotes more than a page to
discussing Israeli settlements and their political context. But the lengthy
article does not mention terrorism even once. Nor does it mention the terrorist
organizations Hamas, Islamic Jihad or Al-Aqsa Brigades, all of which openly call
for Israel's destruction. Nor does the article mention democracy or suggest the
desirability of creating a Palestinian government that might respect the human
rights of its own people, never mind its neighbors. "Empathy" and a "deep sense
of what drives people" are exactly what are missing from the article and,
apparently, from Harvard's would-be Middle East negotiators.
Mark Shere '88
Indianapolis
Do Palestinians really want peace?
The article on Professor Mnookin's ambitious effort at tackling the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict through negotiation left me with mixed emotions. Of
course, negotiation often works and is a preferred dispute resolution tool. Its
efficacy as a discipline has been validated through the years.
Just the same, we would be naive to think, as the article suggests, that what
stands in the way of peace is simply a better negotiation process for the
parties. We have 57 years of history since Israel's founding--and more before
that--to tell us otherwise.
It does not take a Harvard-trained negotiator to understand that perhaps the
most important element of any negotiation is sincerity. Both sides have to
sincerely want to reach agreement.
Unfortunately, the politically incorrect truth is that as judged by actions--not
sound bites--the Palestinians have lacked sincerity for 57
years. When Israel
was founded it said "yes" to a two-state solution, while the Arab world
responded "no Jews," and launched the first of several wars to destroy Israel.
Unfortunately, except for some posturing, little has changed since. Demanding a
"right of return" is just a more polite euphemism for the old "no Jews," which
was arguably more direct and sincere.
All said, negotiation can be a wonderful aid to help solve many disputes, but to
work, it must be premised on sincerity, which even the most seasoned facilitator
like Mnookin cannot mandate.
William Choslovsky '94
Chicago
Earlier Pioneers
In your informative article on the Negotiation Program, "Online and on the Road"
(Fall 2005), you refer to the "pioneering work of Harvard faculty giants." I
agree that they are giants, but their work on negotiation was preceded by
important scholarship and teaching by others unmentioned and now not so
famous.
In 1953, Robert Matthew of Ohio State Law School published his article,
"Negotiation: A Pedagogical Challenge," 6 Journal of Legal Education 93. In
1967, James J. White published an article reporting on a seminar on negotiation
which he taught at the University of Michigan, "The Lawyer as a Negotiator: An
Adventure in Understanding and Teaching the Art of Negotiation," 19 Journal of
Legal Education 337. In 1967 at the University of Washington, Robert Fletcher
and I taught a course on negotiation on an experimental basis, which we reported
in an article, "A Course on the Subject of Negotiation," 21 Journal of Legal
Education 196 (1968). I continued to teach the course at the University of
Washington, at Stanford University Law School as a visitor in 1979-80 and as a
visitor at the University of Iowa Law School in the fall of 1982.
I have written this letter because I believe that those who undertook to bring
negotiation into law school education earlier than those highlighted by the
Harvard Law Bulletin also deserve some credit and recognition for their work,
which preceded that of the "pioneers."
Cornelius J. Peck '49
Seattle
Missing Story
I was distressed that the Bulletin's note listing the Harvard-educated jurists
who have been justices of the Supreme Court (Gallery, Fall 2005) failed to refer
to Joseph Story of the Harvard College class of 1798. He was not a law school
graduate because the law school was not established until 1817, by which time
Justice Story had been a member of the Supreme Court bench for six years.
While an associate justice, he became the first Dane Professor at the school and
wrote the most important and influential legal textbooks of the era. He died in
1845.
If a degree recipient from Columbia was to be included in the list, certainly
Justice Story, a Harvard-educated law school professor and Supreme Court judge
for over 30 years, should have been added. After all, the entrance to Langdell
Hall has been guarded by his statue for generations.
George Minkin '44 ('47) LL.M. '48
New York City
Correction
The fall issue of the Bulletin misquoted Professor David Shapiro '57 in a story
that touched on an amicus brief he co-wrote and submitted to the U.S. Supreme
Court in Gonzales v. Raich, challenging the federal government's prosecution of
the use of home-grown marijuana for medical purposes. Shapiro was quoted as
saying: "We persuaded two judges, but that was two less than what we needed." It
should have read "... three less than what we needed." We regret the error.
Next: In the Classroom
