When principal principles produce problems

Some come to discussions armed with data and other evidentiary arguments. Some come with principles so ironclad they preclude negotiation as they "refuse even to consider the other side's case" (Fisher, Ury & Patton, 2011, p. 90). But those inviolable principles are not what the authors mean by "principled negotiation." 

Data, standards, and evidence gathered, curated, organized, and presented to advance one argument should inform all parties--it's a bit like watching a fictionalized film in the sense that you the viewer are suspending your disbelief so you can enter into viewership and fully experience the story. Suspend your disbelief as a party to a conflict; listen prepared to accept actual facts. Express appreciation for that body of evidence. 

Then present your own case. Just as you absorbed the evidence of the other side, expect all parties to treat your facts as legitimate. Acknowledge the truths on all sides and return to a commitment to seek fairness, not the zero-sum, winner-take-all, hard positional commitment to one outcome only. 

A commitment to a fair outcome is something that might seem obvious, but it is not necessarily. If we look at the adversarial systems such as the legal system or legislative bodies, we see that, for many of the parties, the goal is total victory and the methods include shutting down the opportunities of others to present evidence. This is not how principled negotiation works and, sure enough, many decisions are made by the courts and by legislatures that were achieved by unfair processes, often including technical methods of shutting down part or all of a party's argument. "Objection!" "Sustained." 

The principle of principled negotiation is commitment to fair process and fair outcome, not to other principles touted by parties arguing over their beliefs.

When Hamas attacked Israel 7 October 2023 they did so based on their positions. Israel then attacked based on their positions. Both sides had very legitimate arguments and evidence. Both sides operate as deeply traumatized people. But the methods chosen by both sides are destructive, constructing nothing, transmogrifying rather than transforming. The rest of the world--Iran, the US, and all who supply arms to both sides--are simply spraying gasoline on the fire, adding to misery, not promoting any wise outcomes at all. Both sides--Hamas and Israel--are engaged in genocidal actions so driven by utter hatred that principles we might associate with life--protection of children, for example--are not features of either side's actions. Hamas isn't hesitant to call for the annihilation of the Jewish people, as evidenced in their original 1987 Charter and as evidenced by documents discovered[1] by Israel in Hamas war rooms. Israel continues to commit genocidal attacks that "target" Hamas leaders and kill everyone around those leaders, including babies.

Principled negotiation is hard sometimes. But war is harder.

Reference

Fisher, Roger; Ury, William; Patton, Bruce (2011). Getting to yes: Negotiating agreement without giving in. (3^rd ed.). New York, NY: Penguin. 

---

[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2024/10/12/exclusive-hamas-documents-sinwar-planning-iran/?utm_campaign=wp_todays_headlines&utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter&wpisrc=nl_headlines&carta-url=https%3A%2F%2Fs2.washingtonpost.com%2Fcar-ln-tr%2F3f47a5d%2F670b9a269d95b43d9f313b6d%2F596d40a4ae7e8a44e70297c3%2F8%2F50%2F670b9a269d95b43d9f313b6d