Peace talks are the cornerstone of addressing armed conflict. They have led to the settlement of more conflicts than any other means of war termination throughout history, though many have yet to achieve the desired level of enduring stability. While much analysis revolves around national-level negotiations among key governmental and non-governmental leaders, there is growing interest in broadening the scope of participation to other relevant constituencies and stakeholders. But how to do so is a highly political subject that depends on how, where and when participation occurs.
Several factors can derail peace processes. For instance, the internal political structures of negotiating parties often present obstacles to peace. Some may be unwilling to compromise on the issues that are central to their identity and political survival, or they might view a compromise as a sign of weakness. In addition, peace processes may face challenges from spoiling groups that attempt to derail negotiations.
A second stumbling block is the question of who would sign a peace agreement. In the Israeli-Palestinian case, Yitzhak Rabin and Yasser Arafat had diametrically opposed positions on Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territory and the creation of a Palestinian state within pre-1967 borders. Despite some short-lived attempts at unity coalitions, such as an informal agreement between Fatah and Hamas in 2023, these splits are unlikely to disappear.
Finally, the issue of how the concept of “peace” is understood is a critical one. The assumption that no fighting means peace or that a peace agreement will end violence and suffering almost instantly can derail the negotiation process by making it seem futile. By contrast, a more expansive definition of peace can offer new entry points for building an enduring peace.