The most common and conventional way of thinking about peace talks involves bringing a conflict’s key governmental and non-governmental leaders to the table to discuss a formal agreement that will end a conflict. However, there is increasing interest in broadening the participation of broader constituencies and stakeholders in peace processes. This is referred to as “inclusivity” and is often seen as a means towards peace.
The reasons why some peace talks fail can be complex and varied. Often, it is because the parties involved are not willing to make the compromises that would be necessary for a sustainable settlement. Other times, it is because a peace process itself can be derailed by forces that oppose it. The rise of Hamas in Gaza and right-wing Israeli political movements in the wake of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict are examples.
Moreover, barriers to peacemaking can be created by the international community’s own actions and policies. These include international norms of non-interference that prevent entry into a conflict, a lack of leverage, and ethical dilemmas.
Finally, it can be difficult to enter into peace negotiations when the key negotiating partner is committed to pursuing a strategic victory over its opponents. Such is the case with Israel, which sees a Palestinian state as a threat to its security and thus has been reluctant to compromise on key issues such as borders, territory, and Jerusalem.
About the Author
