Skip to footer

What will drive Israelis, Palestinians to talks

With Secretary John Kerry confident of talks starting soon, the new imperatives in the US and Middle East can help drive a peace deal between Israel and Palestinian leaders.

|
AP Photo
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu talks to the media at the Knesset, Israeli parliament, in Jerusalem July 22. He is fast-tracking legislation that would allow him to put any peace deal with the Palestinians to a national referendum. Polls have suggested a majority of Israelis support the establishment of a Palestinian state alongside Israel, but many groups are vehemently opposed, including hard-liners among Israel's West Bank settlers.
  • By the Monitor's Editorial Board

For more than 40 years, every American president has had to be a schoolyard teacher watching over Israelis and Palestinians, jumping in to persuade them either to stop fighting or to make up – until the next fight. This mediation role by the United States has sufficed to maintain an on again, off again peace. With negotiations expected to start again soon after three years of stalemate, will this time be any different?

Top Israelis seem to think so. Ever since Secretary of State John Kerry announced a breakthrough Friday toward starting the talks, Israelis have debated how to approve any deal for a two-state solution – whether by national referendum or a cabinet vote. A few Palestinian leaders, meanwhile, are still insisting on some prenegotiation agreements. This implies that the outlines of a deal are pretty well known, with only a strong dash of political will needed.

To prevent the talks from being derailed before they start in Washington, a State Department spokesmen offers this necessary detail: “There are only a limited number of parties who know the true details of what was agreed.”

Hope is in the air, and for good reasons. President Obama has been firm ever since a 2011 speech on what a deal should look like. The region’s main agitators who might scuttle the talks – Syria, Hamas, and Iran – are weaker. Egypt and Iraq are in little shape to meddle. The Arab Spring, while in a muddied state, has left the Palestinian people with an even stronger desire for democratic self-rule. Israel needs a deal so it can better focus on the Iranian threat. And economic globalization has made territorial disputes, ethnic wars, and religious imperialism look like drags on progress.

The US role has long been to build trust and offer incentives for talks and compromise, as it did for the Israel-Egypt peace pact. This time, it put together a $4 billion investment package for the beleaguered Palestinians while making assurances on Israel’s security. But far more than money and power give the US this clout. Its strength lies in being an honest broker, one driven as much by ideals of a common humanity as by national self-interest, such as oil.

And as much as Mr. Obama wants to refocus US attention on Asia, he has still put his presidential prestige on the line for an Israeli-Palestinian deal, as did his recent predecessors in the White House.

In other words, US goodwill and commitment remain the main drivers for the two sides to even contemplate a different future. Those qualities endure despite an American mood, wearied by war and fixated on fixing the economy, that wants to withdraw from overseas entanglements.

With the window for a peace deal widening, these talks need even more public and private support than past talks. What’s happening outside the negotiating room might be far more consequential than the dealmaking inside.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.
editor@csmonitor.com
Subscribe
Mark Sappenfield
Editor

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

Subscribe to insightful journalism

QR Code to What will drive Israelis, Palestinians to talks
Read this article in
https://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/the-monitors-view/2013/0723/What-will-drive-Israelis-Palestinians-to-talks
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today
https://www.csmonitor.com/subscribe