Rethinking the Peace Process

WASHINGTON, D.C.: Many stories coming out of Sharm el-Sheikh convey the idea that the hastily convened Middle East summit was a success. The reality, however, is both more complicated and more sobering.

Yes, Israelis and Palestinians agreed to issue public statements calling for an end to the violence. And yes, the two sides also agreed to take steps so that they are less likely to come into open conflict with one another. Yet the reality is less reassuring. President Clinton announced the accord; Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak and PLO Chairman Yasir Arafat signed nothing. Moreover, we have seen assurances like this before only to see renewed violence. The same could all too easily happen again.

Even more important, President Clinton had little to say about the future path of Middle East diplomacy other than to note the United States would consult with parties on how to more forward. But moving forward promises to be easier called for than carried out. The Middle East peace process, as it has evolved over three decades, may well be over. Ironically, this development comes only months after the one attempt to actually solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

To continue reading, please log in or enter your email address.

To read this article from our archive, please log in or register now. After entering your email, you'll have access to two free articles every month. For unlimited access to Project Syndicate, subscribe now.


By proceeding, you are agreeing to our Terms and Conditions.

Log in;

Cookies and Privacy

We use cookies to improve your experience on our website. To find out more, read our updated cookie policy and privacy policy.