Turning points in conflict: Prenegotiation decision-making in South Africa and the Middle East

The dissertation analyzes the processes by which enemy groups in violent, protracted conflicts decide to initiate direct negotiation, to recognize and legitimize one another, and to commit themselves to peaceful resolution of disputes. The primary data are derived from over 75 interviews with decisionmakers on both sides of the South African and Israeli-Palestinian conflicts.;The first chapter reviews theories of conflict settlement with particular attention to theories of conflict "ripeness," realism, internal/external dynamics, and prospect theory. It identifies paradoxes and ambiguities in existing literature. Chapters 2 and 3 present case-study data regarding the events and processes that decisionmakers in the two conflicts considered to be most critical to the moves to prenegotiation. Chapter 4 synthesizes decisionmakers' analyses and interpretations into a model incorporating the processes inductively identified as most salient for decisionmakers. Chapter 5 draws conclusions based on the case study data, and examines their implications for the theoretical perspectives addressed in Chapter 1.;The conclusions highlight the role in prenegotiation decisionmaking of various types of perceived threats: Unilateral de-escalatory declarations, contacts between enemy groups, and settlements in overlapping conflicts, reduced parties' sense of existential threat. On the other hand, increased threats to parties' power advantages vis-a-vis opponents; to parties internal, domestic positions; to the positions of potential negotiation partners; and to the overall value of a potential settlement motivated negotiation initiatives in each case.;The dissertation proposes that the desire to avoid loss of internal or domestic political position can motivate prenegotiation decisionmaking when conflicts are no longer seen to pose existential threats to the nation. Implications of the desire to avoid internal political loss are discussed in terms of the theoretical paradoxes identified in the introduction.