The Role of Trust in Israeli Peace Negotiations (2017)

Abstract

Trust has many definitions and usages in international relations and conflicts, but it is basically the belief or conviction that one’s protagonists are sincere, i.e., that there is credibility that they will do what they commit themselves to do, will honor their agreements. This belief may be based on many elements, most of all, perhaps, the perception of the protagonists. This perception itself may be influenced by intelligence, history, past experience, ideology, preconceived notions, and more. The absence of trust may not necessarily be the same as distrust but rather uncertainty regarding future behavior of the other, for example, their capacity to implement an agreement, particularly to deal with spoilers; the trustworthiness of successors in future leadership or regime change. It is difficult to measure trust (or distrust) but the perceived degree of risk or threat may be good indicators. Yet, often one must deal not only with a leader or negotiator’s trust or distrust of the protagonist but also with that of the public, both one’s own and that of the other side (Putnam). And the absence of trust, but particularly distrust, may be self-perpetuating or “self-fulfilling prophecy” inasmuch as it may influence perceptions and misperceptions of the other. All of these aspects of trust may be found in Israel’s negotiations with its adversaries over the years. Indeed, while not the only factor, the element of trust, or absence of trust or actual distrust, has played a central role with regard to both failures and breakthroughs in efforts for agreements with Jordan, Egypt, Syria and the Palestinians since 1967 (Golan 2014). This chapter shall examine two instances in some detail, Jordan (1967–68) and Egypt (1971, 1973, 1977–79), and look briefly at subsequent efforts.