Monday, December 1, 2014

Israel and Palestine: Diplomacy at work

I do not believe that the resolution of the issues between Israel and Palestine lies with the ascendancy of more moderate political leaders. The closest to being resolved the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict has been was at the Oslo Accords in 1993 with Yasser Arafat and Yitzhak Rabin. Arafat was not exactly a hardliner, but he wasn’t a quite moderate either. Rabin was politically moderate, even too moderate, according to some.

Although the Oslo Accords did not ultimately result in an agreement between Israel and the Palestinians, it did precipitate a Nobel Prize shared by Arafat and Rabin (and Shimon Peres). Two years after the famous handshake between the two leaders on the White House lawn, Rabin was assassinated by a radical right-wing Israeli who did not approve of the signing of the Oslo Accords. In this case, moderate, or fairly moderate, political leaders were able to make some progress in reaching a settlement, but were unable to reach a final status.

In 1972 when President Nixon made a diplomatic visit to China, it was looked at as very uncharacteristic of him as a politician because he was known as being very conservative and anti-communist. His reputation was what allowed him to make that visit successfully and help to thaw relations between the United States and China without public backlash. No one questioned whether he was sympathetic to the Communist cause because he had such a strong reputation for conservatism and anti-communism.

President Reagan took advantage of a similar situation to help end the Cold War when he nurtured a positive relationship with Mikhail Gorbachev. Reagan had a track record of being conservative and his motives and allegiance to democracy were not brought into question when he acknowledged that the Soviet Union was no longer an “Evil Empire.”

It may be that it is not moderates, but more partisan political leaders who may bring about the settlement of final status issues between Israelis and Palestinians. Moderates are subject to criticism and accusations of being too soft or conceding too much during negotiations, whereas more partisan leaders have secured stronger reputations with their constituents.