Unilateral steps may pave way for lasting Israel-Palestine peace
An agreement by both Israel and the Palestinians to make concessions unique to their side may make it easier to arrive at a final deal.
US Secretary of State John Kerry and his team seem to have a very clear idea of what they want in the ongoing Palestinian-Israeli peace talks. But the general public seems lost trying to figure out exactly what he is after.
A close and thorough analysis of publicly available information, plus knowledge of the area and the political maneuverability of the main players, leads to a deceptively simple conclusion. Kerry and peace envoy Martin Indyk are clearly not after an agreement that will end the conflict once and for all. This was the goal demanded by former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak during the Clinton-led Camp David II effort, which ended in failure.
At the same time, it is clear that neither the Americans nor the Israelis want to repeat Israel's unilateral military actions in South Lebanon and the Gaza Strip, moves that were rejected by the other side, lacked international backing and failed to provide peace or quiet. Instead, it appears that the US team is after something less than a contract to end the conflict: a set of actions that both sides privately agree to and will not derail.
The idea of a unilateral agreement sounds contradictory. But if one can be reached, it would ease points of tension in the occupied territories, lessen the space that Israel commits not to further settle and slowly prepare the public for a much later deal.
