Siege of the Church

Analysis #2: Siege Case Study

This paper will analyze the Siege of Bethlehem using the power paradigm, the ladder of conflict, trust, and the negotiation tree.

For the majority of the siege, the militants had veto power because they could simply refuse to meet any of the demands that the IDF made. The fact that they did not take advantage of this indicates that they perceived themselves as the weaker party within the negotiations. This perception was probably because they had no food, had limited ammunition, had no sanitation, had injured people, and had a few dead as well. This self-perception automatically lent to Israel the position of the strong negotiator.

The Israelis negotiated from a strong position. They had the power to provide medical aid, food, and to remove the bodies from within the church. The key was to time the offers of these services at times when the militants felt they needed them and then to negotiate for things that Israel wanted, such as the release of innocent civilians. Another reason why Israel was able to negotiate from a position of power is because Israel gained a lot of support internationally during the first release of the civilians. This support was due to the live broadcast by CNN. It showed the rest of the world that Israel was willing to let people not involved in the conflict simply exit the church and go home.

The appearance of protestors in front of the media in front of the church shifted power from the Israelis to the militants. Israel was put under more pressure internationally to end the siege. The militants saw that actors within the international community were siding with them and therefore they perceived that they had more power and were able to make demands for how they would be treated upon surrender.

During the entire negotiation, the head of the Israeli team tried to establish trust between the two parties. He wanted to maintain this trust throughout the entire negotiation. It...