Israel’s iron dome: Implications on commercial negotiations

By Dhinesha Ruwanthi Perera 

The conflict between Israel and Hamas in the Gaza Strip is still a seeking resolution, and progressively approaching a settlement. In this backdrop both the State of Israel and Palestine are negotiating, expressing demands and seeking a win-win settlement. In this traditional battle the iron dome is a significant, novel concept.

Iron dome is a protective shield to safeguard the State of Israel, its national assets and people. Further, it is a defence mechanism providing anti-missile protection to the strategic areas of Israel – Tel Aviv, Jerusalem, Nazareth, Herzliya and Haifa (Jerusalem Post, 2017).

Israel and Palestine could be deemed as negotiator States. As “angry counterparts” both States are practicing negotiating tactics to achieve a win-win situation. It is worthwhile to understand how the two cultures (Israel and Palestine) perceive the expression of anger. Anger is not a consistently wise negotiating strategy as evidenced in literature (Robbins et al., 2013, p. 501). Thus negotiators should consider the implications of using anger to resolve conflicts.

The use of missiles to cause harm, loss and damage is an expression of ‘utmost anger’ by these negotiating States. While explicitly comparing how Israel and Palestine negotiators react to the angry counterpart, two aspects could be highlighted.

First, Palestinian negotiators increased their tactical use of distributive negotiating tactics. This may result in a win-lose situation where the parties divide up a fixed amount of aspirations. Thus they rely on written and verbal agreements and adverse measures of physical attacks by way of missiles. Secondly, however, Israeli negotiators reduced their use of these tactics and were rather focused at one form of strategic negotiation. They adopt a fixed pie approach believing that there is only a fixed amount of aspirations to be divided between the two States.

Therefore, Palestinian negotiators penetrated a harder bargain at the juncture when the counterpart was becoming angry. They fired missiles to Israel, which was tactically deviated into barren areas of land by the iron dome. This mechanism helped minimise any loss to Israel. On the other hand the Israeli negotiating partner actually negotiated in the face of angry demands by the counterpart. As a counter- measure they acted by firing missiles towards Palestine with proportionate use of force. 

The Palestinian party endorsed that anger is a legitimate way of negotiations. Evidencing this fact they believe that giving larger concessions when faced with an angry negotiating partner is a better approach to effective negotiations (Adam et al., 2010). Israel as a conservative, but most intelligent nation approach negotiations in a different way. Giving smaller concessions to angry negotiating partner by Israel is a strategic method of mitigating the use of anger as a tool for negotiations. Israel holds that anger is not a legitimate way of negotiations and refused to cooperate when Palestinian opponents become upset.   

Organisations could draw insights from the concept of iron dome. Business conflicts comprise of incompatibilities between parties, intentions and outcomes (Judge et al., 2014).Incompatibilities arise due to different values and beliefs on which the parties contract with each other. Financial and sentimental gains are the two cornerstone values. Further, companies could focus on protection clauses in agreements which preserve interests of counterparts. Value-driven compensation clauses could be incorporated to compromise any losses beyond financial measures that impede advancement of parties. 

The bargaining powers of the counterparts are an important indicator of their intentions. Utmost good faith, although a superordinate goal is the expectation of the counterparts. On the other hand, malicious intentions would sever cordial relationships between counterparts. In order to achieve shared aspirations each party gives up something of value. Intentions of parties could result in either “perceived conflict” or “felt conflict”. The former means the awareness of a party of the possibility for arousal of conflicts due to bad-faith by the counterpart. The latter teaches businesses that fraudulent intentions create anxiety, frustration and hostility which have an emotional involvement for counterparts. 

Outcomes of conflicts can be trifurcated into competing, collaborating and compromising (Judge et al., 2013). While businesses could adopt a mixture of these approaches they should also preserve their aspirations. The competing approach emphasises satisfying one party’s interests neglecting the counterpart. However, both parties desire to satisfy fully the interests of one another in the collaborating approach. The mediocre approach of compromising encourages counterparts to each give up something willingly to level the conflict or misunderstanding. Hence, the iron dome has strong business implications, especially on commercial negotiations.   

(The writer is a lawyer by profession and a lecturer as well. She is also a researcher and writer. She has published her work in the fields of work ethics and its organisational implications, organisational behaviour, legal aspects of supplies for businesses, workplace spirituality, execution of creativity and defence management in military organisations.)