Talking Beats Fighting

Expectations could hardly be lower as the Israeli government and the Palestinians prepare for a new round of direct talks in Washington. The Obama administration says it would like to see a comprehensive peace plan put into place within a year. A lofty goal, to be sure. The Israelis and Palestinians sides may not agree on much, but they apparently are of one mind about the time frame: It won’t happen. As Yossi Beilin, a former Knesset member, said, “The gap between the two sides is too big.”

We very much hope the skeptics are wrong. While it takes some effort to imagine a magic formula that would bring a lasting peace to the region within 12 months, at least the two sides are talking.

History suggests that talks are not always wise, and that negotiated settlements do not guarantee peace. The world would have been better off if Neville Chamberlain had absented himself from Munich in 1938 and sent the Royal Air Force in his place.

But history also suggests that breakthroughs can and do happen, sometimes quite unexpectedly. Twenty years ago, few people would have predicted that Northern Ireland would soon have a legislative assembly in which militant Unionists and onetime IRA members shared power. The arrangement has not worked perfectly, but at least bombs no longer shatter the night in Belfast.

The settlement in Northern Ireland was the result of direct talks facilitated by the Clinton administration. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is, of course, far more complicated than other conflicts in other regions of the world. But complications should not be an obstacle to negotiation, not at a time when the alternative seems to be growing animosity and mistrust.

It is incumbent on the Obama administration to show that it has the vision and the patience to follow through on its ambitious goal of a settlement within a year. This is an opportunity for the Obama administration to prove that it is serious about the issue and serious about its close ties to a longtime friend and ally. If Washington has nothing new to propose and discuss, the fault will not be with the two parties at the table. Yes, talks are preferable to war, but Washington must make sure that the talks are meaningful and not simply make-work.

Article continues below
More from Politics
STAR OF DAVID OR 'PLAIN STAR'?   If you thought "CP Time" was impolitic, on July 2 Donald Trump posted a picture on Twitter of a Star of David on top of a pile of cash next to Hillary Clinton's face. You'd think after the aforementioned crime stats incident (or after engaging a user called "@WhiteGenocideTM," or blasting out a quote from Benito Mussolini, or...) Trump would have learned to wait a full 15 seconds before hitting the "Tweet" button. But not only was the gaffe itself bad, the attempts at damage control made the BP oil spill response look a virtuoso performance.  About two hours after the image went up on Trump's account, somebody took it down and replaced it with a similar picture that swapped the hexagram with a circle (bearing the same legend "Most Corrupt Candidate Ever!"!). Believe it or not, it actually got worse from there. As reports arose that the first image had originated on a white supremacist message board, Trump insisted that the shape was a "sheriff's star," or "plain star," not a Star of David. And he continued to sulk about the coverage online and in public for days afterward, even when the media was clearly ready to move on. This refusal to just let some bad press go would haunt him later on.
Donald Trump More Or Less Says He’ll Keep On Tweeting as President