The Realist Prism: U.S. Should Lead From Behind on Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, Too

The Realist Prism: U.S. Should Lead From Behind on Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, Too

In an effort to defuse the short-term crisis generated by the Palestinian push for United Nations recognition of a Palestinian state this week, French President Nicolas Sarkozy has offered a compromise proposal: a "precise timetable" of negotiations under the aegis of the Quartet that would produce a final status agreement between Palestinians and Israelis in a year's time. The proposal's utility as a practical means of generating an actual solution is minimal, but it could represent a face-saving off-ramp way for the U.S. from the current confrontation.

On paper, setting deadlines for negotiations makes sense. But in the real world, such benchmarks are irrelevant if there are no consequences for not meeting them. In negotiating with Serbia over Kosovo's status, for instance, the U.S. made it clear that if the talks failed to reach a final-status agreement within the time alloted, the United States would be prepared to unilaterally recognize an independent Kosovo in February 2008, even in the absence of any agreement with Belgrade. Is Washington willing to apply the same principle to Israel? With U.S. President Barack Obama preparing to head into a very difficult re-election campaign, the answer is: not likely. Conversely, if the Palestinians decide not to accept compromise solutions on the status of Jerusalem or the return of refugees within the timetable advanced by Sarkozy, will they have forfeited statehood for all time? Again, the answer is: probably not.

The problem is that, as it now stands, the Sarkozy proposal contains no mechanism to compel both sides not only to come to the table, but to agree to a compromise. As Steve Clemons summed it up, "Both Israel and Palestine cannot achieve peace on their own. Their internal domestic institutions and political order cannot take the domestic political stress of delivering on a deal." Yet, as Clemons continues, at present there is no "gaiatsu" (a Japanese term for foreign pressure) that would enable Palestinians and Israelis to transfer the blame for unpopular compromises to the international community. Certainly, the United States has not advanced any such proposal, even though, as the Christian Science Monitor opined, "A specific U.S. plan would help each side more easily persuade its people to support a final deal against attacks by their respective extremists."

Keep reading for free!

Get instant access to the rest of this article by submitting your email address below. You'll also get access to three articles of your choice each month and our free newsletter:

Or, Subscribe now to get full access.

Already a subscriber? Log in here .

What you’ll get with an All-Access subscription to World Politics Review:

A WPR subscription is like no other resource — it’s like having a personal curator and expert analyst of global affairs news. Subscribe now, and you’ll get:

  • Immediate and instant access to the full searchable library of tens of thousands of articles.
  • Daily articles with original analysis, written by leading topic experts, delivered to you every weekday.
  • Regular in-depth articles with deep dives into important issues and countries.
  • The Daily Review email, with our take on the day’s most important news, the latest WPR analysis, what’s on our radar, and more.
  • The Weekly Review email, with quick summaries of the week’s most important coverage, and what’s to come.
  • Completely ad-free reading.

And all of this is available to you when you subscribe today.

More World Politics Review