The United States Should Cut Direct Budgetary Aid to the Palestinian Authority

My case can be organized as followed:- Direct budgetary aid acts as a means for maximizing costs during conflict mediation between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. - Maximizing costs allows the mediator to increase the range of options within which both parties will be able to reach a bargain. - An increased range of options which are acceptable to both parties leads to more viable mediation results. - This benefit outweighs any associated costs. Let us begin with an authoritative definition of mediation, which is central to my argument:Mediation: "A reactive process of conflict management whereby parties seek the assistance of, or accept an offer of help from, an individual, group, or organization to change their behavior, settle their conflict, or resolve their problem without resorting to physical force or invoking the authority of the law"The source which I will be citing addresses mediation in this widely referenced definition. This source cites many other sources which I would like to cite directly (such as the original source of this definition), but which will likely be unavailable to judges and my opponent due to restricted access: . http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com...An increased range of options which are acceptable to both parties leads to more viable mediation results. Said increase is actually the main purpose of mediation, as it is how the mediator increases the common ground between two parties. This common ground usually consists of the disparity between the net expected value of fighting to both parties. In other words, the grey area of concessions in which neither side surrenders so much as would be lost in fighting. This common ground is modified by disparities in information (one side may conceal or magnify their actual strength, creating a distortion of perception), and by the passage of time, which alters the underlying factors which delineate the common ground. This is why mediation puts such emphasis on enlarging and more accurately delineating the common ground, both through attempting to determine where the actual "red lines" stand, despite disparities in information (and then sharing that knowledge as needed), and through inflating the cost of fighting to extend the actual range. As this range shifts over time, a smaller range is much more likely to pass beyond the previous point of agreement and allow conflict to resurface than a larger zone, which even if it shifts will be more likely to contain the point of compromise within its bounds. Thus an increased range of options which are acceptable to both parties leads to more viable mediation results. Maximizing costs allows the mediator to increase the range of options within which both parties will be able to reach a bargain. As was previously mentioned, the inflation of the cost of fighting increases the shared bargaining zone between the two parties which are being mediated, as that zone is defined as the difference between the net expected value of fighting to each side. For example, if a lucrative trade agreement is only available in times of peace to one of the parties, a decision to fight must include the potential earnings of this agreement as an opportunity cost. Doing so makes war more costly, and extends the range of options available to mediators. This form of extension is reliant upon the mediator's continued leverage over the costs, and evaporates quickly without that support, potentially leading to a resurfacing of conflict if the bargain reached was within the artificial extension of the natural bargaining zone. Thus, maximizing costs allows the mediator to increase the range of options within which both parties will be able to reach a bargain. Direct budgetary aid acts as a means for maximizing costs during conflict mediation between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. The conflict between Israel and Palestine is a labyrinthine one, entangled in many powers, both on the world stage and the regional one. The chief mediator on this stage is the US, an ally to Israel which maintains many trade and research agreements (. http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org...), and intelligence agreements (. http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org...) with Israel. The US also offers Israel yearly aid (. http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org...). These measures of support all make a level of war which would force the US to withdraw them extremely costly to Israel. But mediation is a two way street, and there is a vast disparity between the cost maximization on the Israeli side and that on the Palestinian side. On the Palestinian side, the US has averaged around $400 million per annum since 2008 (. http://fas.org...). On the other hand, Israel has received $121 billion YTD in aid (. http://fas.org...). If we stopped aid to Israel today and continued at our current rate with Palestine, it would take almost 300 years for them to catch up. This makes the cost of conflict which would force open war astronomically less on the Palestinian side, and contributes to the difficulty of coming to a compromise: the Palestinians have a much lower net cost to fighting, as support from the rest of the Arab and Muslim world is not contingent on their cooperation with US-led mediation. By these metrics, more aid and deeper diplomatic ties would increase the cost of conflict for their party, make reconciliation and compromise more attractive by comparison, and increase the success of mediation. Eliminating aid would shrink the already small range of options for the Palestinians, possibly negating the current standoff and inciting a regional war as diplomatic reconciliation with Israel becomes viewed as impossible. This becomes even more plausible as Russia and China emerge on the world stage as potential foils to US influence in the region. Thus, direct budgetary aid acts as a means for maximizing costs during conflict mediation between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. This benefit outweighs any associated costs. I have outlined the dire potential effects on Israeli-Palestinian mediation which cutting of aid to Palestine. I will wait until the next turn to begin my rebuttal of the cost-based arguments which my opponent has outlined.