The Israeli Negotiation Jurisprudence: From Political Mythology to Sacred Extortion

In the political history of the Arab-Israeli conflict, negotiations seem to be more a part of a landscape of repeated deception than a process aimed at reaching a fair settlement. This may not only be due to the imbalance of power but also to differing epistemic references, ethical frameworks, and symbolic systems that govern the negotiations, especially by the Israeli side, which has shown an inherent skill in using religious texts as "jurisprudence" guiding diplomatic action, and as interpretative references for political achievements.

This means that the Arab negotiator is not merely facing a negotiating delegation representing a newly established state, but is grappling with a deep-rooted cultural and religious narrative embedded in the collective Jewish consciousness; a narrative that rises from a religious worldview, not governed by political law, but by a vision that reshapes geography and history according to sacred texts, casting a divine projection onto the negotiation table. Thus, the process shifts from negotiating over land to negotiating over the notions of "divine promise" and the myth of the "chosen people".

Therefore, the term "jurisprudence" is not just a linguistic metaphor but an accurate description of how the Jewish-Zionist elite approaches the question of negotiation. It can be said that the so-called "Israeli negotiation jurisprudence" is a mixture of Torah and Talmudic interpretations, surrounded by a pragmatic and opportunistic tendency, formed over centuries of diasporic narratives, fragmentation, and ghetto experiences, as well as sacred history, before being translated by the modern state into effective tools to justify occupation, expansion, savagery, and settlement under the guise of negotiation.

Negotiating with a Torah-Consciousness

In the Book of Genesis, when Abraham negotiates with God concerning the fate of Sodom and Gomorrah, we see the first images of negotiation in the Torah imagination, where the number of "righteous" required for the city's salvation is reduced from fifty to ten, indicating that negotiation does not mean concession, but rather a maneuvering process based on a Talmudic saying claiming that "wisdom is knowing when to tell the truth and when to pretend to do so".

This perspective confirms that negotiation, in the Talmudic mind, is not a search for truth as a fixed value, but a tool for adaptation according to interest, which works to re-engineer reality rather than change it, within rules always linked to Israel's security, the purity of Jewish identity, and the "right of return" for Jews only; creating a complex duality where there are no equal parties in the equation, but rather an equation that states that there are "those who deserve the land" and those who may negotiate how to leave it; this was clearly manifested in the negotiation paths with the Arabs, from Camp David to Oslo and between and after them.

Methodology of Doubt and Tactics of Buying Time

One of the prominent tools of such a negotiating mentality is what can be termed as "structural doubt" towards the other; one that is not used as an alternative tool, but as a foundational element in the structure of negotiation, whereby the Israeli always positions himself as a "potential victim", demanding security guarantees that turn any permanent agreement into a temporary agreement subject to reneging, as happened in Oslo.

Additionally, the Israeli employs what is described as "tactics of buying time" where time is not used to bridge viewpoints but to exhaust the other party, sow doubts within its ranks, and fuel its internal divisions, which we have seen clearly when the peace process turned from a means of ending the conflict to a means of managing and perpetuating it.

In this sense, and according to the Torah perspective, land is not viewed as a negotiable geographical space but as a theater of divine promise. Hence, negotiation, from this standpoint, does not aim at sharing the land, but at "legitimizing control" over it, using "time" as a temporary cover until the conditions are prepared for further expansion, which is evident in Netanyahu's repeated narrative about the "existential threat" that empties any Palestinian claim of rights from its political content.

Negotiation as a Tool of Denial

The most dangerous aspect of this negotiation jurisprudence is that it does not see negotiation as recognition of the other but as a means of denying them. Negotiations do not rest on equitable legal foundations, but on an Israeli narrative that considers Palestinians as nothing but "temporary components", i.e., "local residents" that must be tamed, deterred, or contained, which was expressed in other terms by Smotrich in the "decisive plan". Thus, the Israeli usually turns negotiations into a trap wherein the Palestinian is asked to recognize the Jewish identity of the state and its right to exist and live, without any reciprocal recognition of Palestinian identity, their Nakba, or their right to resist, making the question of negotiations one that seeks only the acceptance of imposed conditions, rather than negotiating over them.

Consequently, when the recurring talk of nearing a deal for a ceasefire arises, which later aims to gradually end the war, we must pay attention to two essential matters. First, that the negotiation situation in this form is a tool for the continuation of the war, not its termination; and second, that despite the urgent need to stop the genocide, we must push the negotiation discussion to be a political discussion about all Palestinian rights in the occupied territories of 1967, so as not to entrench geographic and political division and thus fall prey to the ensuing elimination of the cause. Hence, unifying the Palestinian position has always been and continues to be an urgent necessity.

From this point, understanding the "Israeli negotiation jurisprudence" becomes not merely an intellectual luxury but a strategic necessity, for understanding it redefines the role of language, the limits of possibility, and the narrative of history, in a battle that is still based on narrative before it is on maps; in the context of such jurisprudence, Israeli politics is understood only as sacred extortion, and negotiation as a reproduction of deception, even if it seems ostensibly an offer of peace.