What is it about?

This study suggests that one of the basic elements motivating political actors is their desire to minimize the tension caused by the theoretical gap between their theoretical knowledge and their perception of reality. In order to demonstrate this, the present study compares three different arenas of negotiations which reveal and represent the social construction of the concept of sovereignty: the peace agreement between Israel and Egypt (1979), the peace agreement between Israel and Jordan (1994), and the Oslo agreements between Israel and the PLO (1993–1995).

Featured Image

Why is it important?

the theoretical gap and the necessity that it remains narrow and bearable is one element which motivates actors’ behavior. If acknowledged, such gaps can lead to new perspectives and open fresh avenues for analyzing and understanding political behavior, and suggest a broader space for political maneuvers.

Read the Original

This page is a summary of: Sovereignty as It Should Be: Theoretical Gaps and Negotiations for Peace in Israel/Palestine, International Negotiation, September 2016, Brill, DOI: 10.1163/15718069-12341338.
You can read the full text:

Read

Contributors

The following have contributed to this page