Incrementaled to Death: Peacemaking in the Middle East

The problem is related to the sequencing of issues. The parties at the table are being asked to take small steps to build trust as they move toward the end goal of a two state system with a satisfactory solution to the issues of Jerusalem, the Israeli Settlements, and the Palestinian Right of Return. These issues have been left to the end of every process to date and that has gotten the parties…well, a lot of bloodshed. The reality is that as small steps are taken and trust is tentatively built, spoilers – those who do not want a peace process to transpire – have ample opportunity to reverse any such progress. This makes the people on the ground suspicious of the process and witness little gain for themselves in their own lives.

At the Egyptian resort of Taba in September 2000 the Israeli and Palestinian negotiators needed, by most of their accounts, a few more weeks in order to reach an agreement on the final status problems. The majority of those in the conflict on both sides know what the parameters are to the solution – both Israelis and Palestinian have states, with a sharing of Jerusalem, a stop to illegal settlements (and returning some of the land to the Palestinians), and a symbolic right of return and some type of reparations for those Palestinians evicted from their homes in 1948.

Maybe, just maybe, it is time for a change in strategy. Start dealing with the core problems now and make genuine and visible progress. This is not only the best way to build real trust between the negotiators but it is also the best way to stave off the spoilers, and show the respective populaces that peace does have a dividend in both human and economic terms. And include a positive and powerful role (or series of roles) for the local communities in any solution. This will create ownership in the process on the ground where it has been sorely lacking. In negotiation expert William Ury’s terminology, empower the “Third Side.”

This strategy is clearly risky because it puts a focus on the core of the conflict from the beginning of the process. However, when pitted against the current backdrop how much more risk is there to take? When a conflict has reached this stage – constant death, collective fatalism, and a lack of innovative approaches -- it may very well take a dramatic and jolting act to alter its course permanently (e.g. Recall Sadat’s stunning trip to Jerusalem). Both sides are at a loss for what to do. Neither has an answer but to try the same old trick to see if this will work. This new approach is worth a try and can be done. What stands in the way is the will of the parties to take this chance.

Biography

Comments

---

Free subscription to comments on this article

Add Brief Comment

Josh  Weiss	jweiss@law.harvard.edu      01/22/04
An important response
David, I obviously disagree with your assessment -- both in terms of the potential for a negotiated solution and your gross generalization of Palestinian people and society. Certainly reform is needed with the Palestinian government and I would argue in the Israeli government as well. However, your characterization of Palestinians makes one believe that they are simply not capable of making peace, which I wholeheartedly disagree with. Sincerely, Josh Weiss Add New Comment

david trombka	trombka@netvision.net.il      01/15/04
Dear Joshua, The problem with your appraoch is that there is an underlying assumption that all conflicts are negotiable, or subject to mediated conflict resolution. This is not the case. The Palestinian-Israel conflict is not, and indeed never was, a political conflict that give and take can solve. It is, and always was, a manifestation of moral decadence and anti-Semitism on the part of the Arabs. I do not mean to say that the Palestinians do not have legitimate gripes, but I do mean to say that whatever their gripes, they are currently not capable of peace. Just look at Palestinian society itself. They rape, loot, rob and murder eachother with hardly any restraint. They kill young women for looking the wrong way at men and send teenagers and even married women to act as suicide bombers. Only when their society becomes much less bloodthirsty, even amongst themselves - and only when basic human rights become a part of the overall Palestinian consciousness, will peace have a chance. Only then can mediation work. By continuing to view every problem as political, rather than moral, we will miss the boat constantly. And even worse, the bloodshed caused by false negotiation strategies, as you so correctly notice, may continue. Add New Comment

Kent	09/02/03
Joshua, I wish it were as simple as Israeli Settlements, and the Palestinian Right of Return. You have the issue reversed. The Palistinian Aribs do not accept the Israeli Right of Retutn. I feel great regret at the opportunity for mutual development that has been squandered by stupidity. Add New Comment

Josh	08/21/03
Regarding your comments Gil
Gil, Thanks for your posting. Actually, I think that what I was suggesting is different in a few ways. First, the Camp David meeting did try to address many core issues, but left out some that were key to the overall settlement (i.e. the issue of return). Second, because things were not agreed to then does not mean they would not be agreed to now -- as the situation has deteriorated badly. Maybe the time is ripe with the new players to take this type of dramatic step and put the spoilers on the sidelines once and for all. Third, I also strongly urged that the "third side" be given a critical role in the peace process so the people on the ground have ownership. Nothing of this sort was mentioned at Camp David and this is really a critical element to the success of the process. A good example of the third side in peace processes is South Africa and the National Peace Accord structure. The National Peace Committees, Regional Peace Committees, and Local Peace Committees all played an important role in keeping the process on track. I look forward to your reply! Best Josh Weiss Add New Comment

Gil ,   Israel	08/21/03
it was done
What you suggests was already done. In the year 2000 (in much better political condition) priminister Barak tried to talk in Camp-David about the core issues and to reach an agreement which will end the dispute, with regard to all disagreements. It failed - and set off this horoble bloodshade. I do agree that some dramatic steps are needed. But which? Add New Comment

See All 6 Comments

The views expressed by authors are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views of Resourceful Internet Solutions, Inc., Mediate.com or of reviewing editors.