Why US won't be center stage in new Israeli-Palestinian talks

A new round of Palestinian-Israeli talks is set to start Tuesday, and there are three main reasons why the US won't be playing the central role it often does in such negotiations.

Mohamad Torokman/Reuters
Palestinian chief negotiator Saeb Erekat at a press conference in Ramallah. He will be the lead negotiator for the Palestinian Authority in the upcoming Amman talks.

The United States won’t take its usual center-stage position when Israeli and Palestinian negotiators meet Tuesday for their first direct talks in more than a year.

The talks, set for Amman, Jordan, are designed to explore the potential for a return to formal direct peace negotiations, which collapsed in October 2010. They will include one meeting between Israeli and Palestinian representatives and another for those envoys to meet with the Quartet, the four world powers – the US, the European Union, Russia, and the United Nations – that have been pressing for a return to the negotiating table.

But the absence of the US from its traditional lead role is a telling sign of three realities, some Mideast experts say:

  • The US is in a diminished position in the region after the year of the Arab Spring – in which Washington was seen as hesitant to back the protesters – and the failure of President Obama’s pledge in September 2010 to reach a peace accord within a year.
  • The advent of a tough election year means Mr. Obama is unlikely to jump into any peace initiative or to pressure Israel – something a Republican opponent could use against him.
  • Expectations for Tuesday’s talks are low, offering the US little incentive to employ its diplomatic prestige.

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton did issue a statement Sunday lauding Jordan’s role in arranging the latest talks and underscoring US support for resumed negotiations. “We are hopeful that this direct exchange can help move us forward,” she said, adding that “the status quo is not sustainable and the parties must act boldly to advance the cause of peace.”

Israel is expected to be represented at the meetings by Yitzhak Molcho, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s envoy, while the Palestinians are sending negotiator Saeb Erekat. Speaking with reporters in Ramallah Monday, Mr. Erekat said he does not expect the talks to deliver any major breakthroughs.

Tuesday’s talks occur under something of a deadline. In late September the Quartet called on the Israelis and Palestinians to deliver within 90 days “comprehensive proposals on territory and security” to serve as bases for direct negotiations.

Yet while few experts expect anything significant to happen by the Jan. 26 deadline, most observers say both the Israelis and Palestinians have reasons for agreeing to the Amman talks.

Israel wants to be seen as ready and willing to negotiate a peace deal with the Palestinians, given that its international image has deteriorated since the beginning of the Arab Spring. Israel's image abroad has been harmed by its leaders' response to the protests – largely to favor a regional status quo.

The Palestinians may have their eyes set ultimately on the UN and efforts they launched there last fall to win global recognition.

One scenario, Mideast experts say, is that the Palestinian leadership could use the expected failure of the talks to revive its push for official UN recognition of a state of Palestine. The Palestinians could point to both the presumed failure of the Quartet's initiative and to what they argue is Israel's refusal to take serious steps toward peace.

Palestinian leaders continue to call on Israel to halt settlement construction in the occupied territories as a necessary first step for actual peace negotiations to resume. Palestinian negotiator Erekat alluded to this position Sunday when he said Tuesday’s talks would take up Israel’s “international legal obligations … to freeze all settlement construction.”

Israel has countered that is is willing to resume peace negotiations without conditions. 

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

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.