Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (23226)	4/2/2002 10:40:29 PM
From: Ilaine	Respond to of 281500

>>I'm seeing more and more Palestinian spokespeople begging the US to intervene and save their bacon.<< Why not intervene? It has to do, in my opinion, with the weakness of mediation. All forms of conflict resolution have strengths and weaknesses. The weakness in litigation, and in war, which is the continuation of litigation by other means [;^)], is that you are playing a zero-sum game. Someone wins, someone loses. The weakness in mediation is that the mediator has to give something to both parties, even if it's something that party could never dream of getting via conflict. Thus, mediation is good in situations where either 1) the parties are not that far apart or 2) litigation or war - conflict to the bitter end - may destroy both of them. In situations where one party is bound to win, that party would be insane to mediate, and the other party would be insane not to mediate. Mediation is not always the best solution (for the person who cannot lose). P.S. I have yet to see the person who cannot lose. P.P.S. To clarify - the Israelis are in a position of strength. If the USA intervenes as mediator, it MUST wrangle concessions for the Palestinians. Which is why the Palestinians want us to intervene and the Israelis don't.

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (23226)	4/2/2002 11:11:17 PM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

To clarify even further - completely unreasonable people benefit more from mediation than reasonable people. Why? Let's assume two parties, A and B. They both have desires which are more or less mutually exclusive. They both consult with - I'll say their lawyers because I am a lawyer, but I firmly believe the situation would be similar if we were talking about war. Their advisors tell them what the likely range of outcomes is if they proceed to combat. They do a cost-benefit analysis. They decide if the potential benefit is worth the potential cost expended. A rational person (A) determines whether what he/she wants is reasonable, given the cost. The rest of the world (B - still rational, in economic terms) determines whether what he/she/it wants is achievable, regardless of the cost. Thus, even if it is objectively unlikely that you would achieve your goal through ordinary means, the fact that you are willing to dig in your heels is a factor which must be calculated.