Talking-Cure Diplomacy

This article was published in New York Times 25 February 2010

last month, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton caused a stir with remarks that at first glance seemed a restatement of the obvious — namely, that the 1967 borders between Israel and the Palestinian Authority, along with some land swaps, should be the focus of peace negotiations. In fact, since 1993, when the Oslo agreements were signed, the solution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has been clear: a return to the 1967 borders, with East Jerusalem as the Palestinian capital and, most likely, some form of international involvement in Jerusalem’s Old City.

Why the stir? Because to Mrs. Clinton and the Obama administration, this all seems like a matter of a few simple steps. The American envoy to the Middle East, George Mitchell, has said as much, asserting that a final agreement must — and can — be reached within two years. Bill Clinton made the same assumption with the Camp David and Taba summit meetings of 2000 and 2001, which he seemed to think could end the conflict quickly. Needless to say, he failed.

The basic problem is that, like Bill Clinton, the Obama administration believes that the two sides are essentially rational, acting in their own best interests, and that to get the process unstuck the mediator must simply bridge their differences.