Genuine, Principled and Tactical Compromise

Raphael Cohen-Almagor


This essay addresses the concept of compromise. When compromise takes place between two or more parties, reciprocity must be present; that is, the concessions are mutual. Genuine compromise is based on mutual respect and on genuine concessions between the parties. First, the concept of compromise is explained. Next, a relevant distinction is made between principled and tactical compromise. A principled compromise refers to a mutual recognition by each side of the other’s rights, which leads them to make concessions to enable them to meet on a middle ground. It is genuinely made in good faith and both sides reconcile themselves to the results. To illustrate I consider the need for compromise regarding praying area for women at the Western (Wailing) Wall, considered the holiest site in Judaism. The article proceeds by considering the notion of tactical compromise that reflects temporary arrangement reached as a result of constraints related to time. Here, in fact, agents do not give up any of their aims. They do not act in good faith and do not intend to meet their counterpart on a middle ground. Instead, they simply realize that the end could not be achieved at a given point of time, and they aim to reach it stage by stage. The essential component of compromise, namely mutuality, is lacking.


arrangement; concessions; genuine, principled and tactical compromise; good faith; the Western (Wailing) Wall

Full Text:




Beerbohm E., The Problem of Clean Hands, [in:] Nomos LIX: Compromise, ed. J. Knight, New York 2018.

Bellamy R., Liberalism and Pluralism, London – New York 1999.

Benjamin M., Splitting the Difference, Lawrence 1990.

Bryson V., Feminist Political Theory, London 2016.

Carter A., Direct Action and Liberal Democracy, London 1973.

Cohen A.J., On Compromise, Negotiation and Loss, [in:] Nomos LIX: Compromise, ed. J. Knight, New York 2018.

Cohen-Almagor R., Israel and International Human Rights, [in:] Encyclopedia of Human Rights, ed. F.P. Forsythe, New York 2009.

Cohen-Almagor R., Just, Reasonable Multiculturalism, New York – Cambridge 2021 (forthcoming).

Compromise and Disagreement in Contemporary Political Theory, eds. C.F. Rostbøll, T. Scavenius, London 2017.

Dalferth I.U., Religion, Morality and Being Human: The Controversial Status of Human Dignity, [in:] Human Dignity in Context, eds. D. Grimm, A. Kemmerer, Ch. Möllers, Munich 2018.

Darwall S., Honor, History, and Relationship: Essays in Second-Personal Ethics II, Oxford Scholarship Online, January 2014.

Darwall S., Two Kinds of Respect, “Ethics” 1977, vol. 88(1), DOI:

Dobel P., Compromise and Political Action, Savage 1990.

Erez-Likhovski O., Shapira-Rosenberg R., Excluded, for God’s Sake, Jerusalem 2013–2014.

Fisher R., Ury W., Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In, London 1991.

Ford A., Third Parties to Compromise, [in:] Nomos LIX: Compromise, ed. J. Knight, New York 2018.

Golding M., The Nature of Compromise: A Preliminary Inquiry, [in:] Nomos XXI: Compromise in Ethics, Law and Politics, eds. J.R. Pennock, J.W. Chapman, New York 1979.

Haut R., Women of the Wall: Fighting for the Right to Pray, “The Jofa Journal” 2012, vol. 10(2).

Hutler B., Compromise and religious freedom, “Law and Philosophy” 2020, vol. 39, DOI:

Israel-Cohen Y., Between Feminism and Orthodox Judaism, Leiden 2015.

Jarvis R., Bargaining and Bargaining Tactics, [in:] Nomos XIV: Coercion, eds. J.R. Pennock, J.W. Chapman, Chicago – New York 1972.

Jobani Y., Perez N., Women of the Wall: Navigating Religion in Sacred Sites, Oxford 2017.

Jones P., O’Flynn I., Can a compromise be fair?, “Politics, Philosophy & Economics” 2012, vol. 12(2), DOI:

Kappel K., How moral disagreement may ground principled moral compromise, “Politics, Philosophy and Economics” 2017, vol. 17(1), DOI:

Kuflik A., Morality and Compromise, [in:] Nomos XXI: Compromise in Ethics, Law and Politics, eds. J.R. Pennock, J.W. Chapman, New York 1979.

Kukathas C., Cultural Toleration, “Nomos” 1997, vol. 39.

Lepora C., On Compromise and Being Compromised, “Journal of Political Philosophy” 2012, vol. 20(1), DOI:

Mangini M., Toward a Theory of Reasonableness, “Ratio Juris” 2018, vol. 31(2), DOI:

Margalit A., On Compromise and Rotten Compromise, Princeton 2010.

May S.C., Moral compromise, civic friendship, and political reconciliation, “Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy” 2011, vol. 14(5), DOI:

May S.C., Principled Compromise and the Abortion Controversy, “Philosophy & Public Affairs” 2005, vol. 33(4), DOI:

McIntosh D., Coercion and International Politics: A Theoretical Analysis, [in:] Nomos XIV: Coercion, eds. J.R. Pennock, J.W. Chapman, Chicago – New York 1972.

Mnookin R., Bargaining with the Devil, New York 2011.

Morley J., On Compromise, London 1923.

Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary of Current English, New York 2000.

Policy Change and Learning, eds. P.A. Sabatier, H.C. Jenkins-Smith, Boulder 1993.

Raday F., Claiming Equal Religious Personhood: Women of The Wall’s Constitutional Saga, [in:] Religion in the Public Sphere: A Comparative Analysis of German, Israeli, American and International Law, eds. W. Brugger, M. Karayanni, Berlin 2007.

Shakdiel L., Women of the Wall: Radical Feminism as an Opportunity for a New Discourse in Israel, “Journal of Israeli History” 2002, vol. 21(1–2), DOI:

Weinstock D., On the possibility of principled moral compromise, “Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy” 2013, vol. 16(4), DOI:


Fenton S., Illegal Jewish schools: Department of Education knew about council faith school cover-up as thousands of pupils ‘disappeared’, “The Independent”, 3.04.2016, [access: 20.03.2021].

Goldman P., Israel to Build Area for Men, Women to Pray Together at Wailing Wall, NBC News, 1.02.2016, [access: 20.02.2021].

Margalit A., Indecent Compromise, Decent Peace, 2005, [access: 20.05.2021].

Raday F., Women of the Wall, [access: 10.03.2021].

Women of the Wall, [access: 20.04.2021].


H.C. 3660/17, Association of Merchants and the Self-Employed v. Minister of the Interior (Jerusalem, October 2017) (Hebrew).

H.C. (High Court of Justice) 5016/96, 5025/96, 5090/96, 5434/96, Horev v. Minister of Transport (Jerusalem, April 1997) (Hebrew).

H.C.J. 1025/89, 955/89, 699/89, Anat Hoffman v. The Jerusalem Municipality and Others, P.D. 48(1), 678 (Hebrew).

H.C.J. 257/89, Anat Hoffman v. Commissioner of the Western Wall, P.D. 48(2) 265 (Hebrew).

H.C.J. 3358/95, Anat Hoffman v. Director General of Prime Minister’s Office, P.D. 54(2) 345 (Hebrew).

H.C.J. 4128/00, Director General of Prime Minister’s Office v. Anat Hoffman, P.D. 57(3) 289 (Hebrew).

Holt v. Hobbs, 574 U.S. 352, 135 S. Court 853 (2015).

Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973).

Data publikacji: 2021-06-30 23:18:39
Data złożenia artykułu: 2021-04-27 10:16:14


Total abstract view - 1261
Downloads (from 2020-06-17) - PDF - 0



  • There are currently no refbacks.

Copyright (c) 2021 Raphael Cohen-Almagor

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.