Limitations of Coercive Diplomacy (The Camp David talks of 2000- A Case Study)

Abstract

Over the past decade, the world has witnessed an increase in the hopes for a peaceful solution regarding the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. However, today, a peaceful negotiated deal seems impossible. Many efforts have originated with good intentions in mind, most of which have ended in failure. July 2000 hosted the most significant talks at Camp David bringing the final status issues to the negotiating table. However, no deal was completed; moreover, since then, violence and instability have escalated in the region. The question raised is whether it is the Palestinians who should be blamed for not accepting the offer or the Israelis for their increasing demands and their practice of coercive diplomacy, or, the Americans for not playing the role of the honest broker. This dissertation analyses the Camp David talks, the events that had led to them, their principal actors, and the techniques of negotiation and coercion, which were practised in them, as well as the consequences of their failure at several levels. Some discussion of subsequent initiatives for peace will also be offered. Researching on Camp David, theories of negotiating were adopted but after studying the case, coercive diplomacy was found to be the best theory for this case study. This study will also focus on the strategies of this theory and whether it is successful or no. In addition, the study illustrates how the mediator’s have strongly crossed their limits by abandoning their role as mediators and wearing the hats of interveners. However, any future agreement will to an extent consider what was discussed at Camp David. In fact, this analysis suggests an appropriate revision of the American mediating approaches and reconsideration of the Israeli policies towards Palestinians, in addition to more steadiness and willingness from the Palestinian side. Limitations of Coercive Diplomacy: The Camp David Summit 2000