Conflict and stubborn refusal to compromise are old news in Middle Eastern relations. Recent pullbacks by Israeli settlers from the West Bank city of Hebron, however, suggest the arrival of changes in the area's political climate and leave U.S. officials wondering if Israeli and Palestinian parties can be called to the negotiation table.
"There was a major step forward in the Hebron pullout," said Peter Feaver, assistant professor of political science.
Although the ceding of more than 80 percent of Hebron to Palestine is deemed a step forward in Israeli-Palestinian relations, additional disagreements continue to exist elsewhere. By allowing Israeli settlers to withdraw from Hebron, Benjamin Netanyahu, prime minister of Israel, displayed an unexpected streak of compromise, sparking division among some of his party members and igniting significant conflict within the Israeli government. One cabinet member, in fact, resigned because of his ardent dissatisfaction with the prime minister's policies.
"It is obvious that on both sides there are parties which are strongly opposed" to the Israeli withdrawal from Hebron, said Ole Holsti, professor of political science. "The ruling party is very much divided on this issue."
Historically, the United States has made a concerted effort to resolve Mid-East conflicts. And, in fact, American efforts have been relatively successful. Most recently, Dennis Ross, an American state department specialist in Middle Eastern affairs, helped negotiate the Oslo accords, triggering Israel's pullout from Hebron.
"He played babysitter, referee... about 15 different roles to get the agreement," Feaver said. "I'd say that's a fairly impressive achievement."
Additional disputes have occurred over possession of the Golan Heights, an area seized from Syria by Israeli soldiers in 1967. Despite sporadic attempts at peace talks since 1991, Syrian and Israeli officials have come to few, if any, compromises.
"At this point, to compromise any further, they must deny who they are," Feaver said of Israel and Syria.
Despite its mitigated success in influencing Israeli-Palestinian relations, the United States has proven less effective in the more recent Syrian conflict. Feaver said the United States has little to no leverage in Syria, making it difficult to resolve any sort of conflict.
"It's harder for us to appreciate just how passionate both sides are," Feaver said of the United States' perspective on Middle Eastern issues. "Americans are, by nature, a split-the-difference, compromise kind of people."
During the past four years, U.S. Secretary of State Warren Christopher has traveled to the Middle East 26 times with the hope of easing Israeli-Syrian tensions-but to no avail. "He's visited Syria more than any other single country," Feaver said. "And despite all that, Syria has refused to budge. I'm not sure there's more we can do."
Feaver added that the issue appears to be deadlocked, and that further American attempts to resolve the situation in Syria would be futile at this point.
Since the unexpected election of Netanyahu, the prospect of peace between Syria and Israel has appeared more bleak than ever before. Netanyahu's hard-line party members are unwilling to compromise with Syria on any level, and the prime minister himself has been only marginally more flexible.
Although compromises pertaining to several Middle Eastern issues appear to be in the works, each involved party has its work cut out for it.
"I think it's fair to say that this issue will be with us for a long time," Holsti said.
Get The Chronicle straight to your inbox
Signup for our weekly newsletter. Cancel at any time.