This also marks the first article on Middle East politics in over a year after running a topic on Internet Law . There has been a lot of talk about the negotiations ongoing between the Israeli government and the Palestinian Authority. These negotiations have been set against a backdrop of a looming deadline that was arbitrarily set. The Israeli Prime Minister, Ehud Barak, wanted to get a final status agreement done in short order and the Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasir Arafat has stated that if things do not go in the PA's favor, that he would unilaterally declare statehood. The question here is whether setting arbitrary deadlines is a good one.
Deadlines can spur people to think creatively and come to a resolution on a long standing problem.
It can be a constructive tool when used properly and when both sides see the deadline as a realistic and credible point in time. If the deadline is not credible or realistic, negotiations that focus on the deadline will not be nearly as successful. When one side chooses to use a deadline as a threat for action, that side needs to be seen as realistically carrying out that threat. If the threat is not credible, then the deadline will not be seen as credible. The threat of action or inaction on behalf of one of the parties has to been seen by the other party and the other side must recognize that this threat is not bluster or a negotiating trick.