• Commentary
  • Research
  • Experts
  • Events
Carnegie China logoCarnegie lettermark logo
{
  "authors": [
    "Zaha Hassan"
  ],
  "type": "other",
  "centerAffiliationAll": "dc",
  "centers": [
    "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace"
  ],
  "collections": [],
  "englishNewsletterAll": "menaTransitions",
  "nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
  "primaryCenter": "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
  "programAffiliation": "MEP",
  "programs": [
    "Middle East"
  ],
  "projects": [],
  "regions": [
    "North America",
    "United States",
    "Middle East",
    "Israel",
    "Palestine"
  ],
  "topics": [
    "Security"
  ]
}

Source: Getty

Other

Diplomacy and Israeli Accountability: Multilateral Peace-making: The Framework, Scope, and Stakeholders

The history of U.S. mediation between Palestinians and Israelis is one in which Palestinians have had to first negotiate their agency, representation, and peoplehood.

Link Copied
By Zaha Hassan
Published on Jun 11, 2020

Source: Palestine Strategy Group

The history of US mediation between Palestinians and Israelis is one in which Palestinians have had to first negotiate their agency, representation and peoplehood. When political recognition finally came from Israel and the US, opening the door to peace talks, it was at a considerable cost to the Palestinian national cause. The US has used its influence as lone peace broker and superpower to alter the terms of reference for an agreement while providing political cover for Israel’s expansionist tendencies. In US policy parlance, settlements went from “illegal” under Carter to being on the cusp of official US recognition as Israeli sovereign territory today under Trump. The removal of the refugee issue from the negotiating table did not begin with Trump; it began with Clinton.

Both political parties in the US, whether in control of the White House or Congress, have consistently worked to constrain Palestinians in their ability to operate in the US, to advocate for their rights in international fora, and to receive economic support while negotiating for an end to occupation. The US has done this both acting alone and through its participation in the multilateral mechanism, the Middle East Quartet. Though support for Israeli policies are on the wane among the base of the Democratic Party, the political polarization within the US on Israel/Palestine means that there will not be a significant change in US policy in the near term....

Read Full Text

This policy paper was originally published by the Palestine Strategy Group.

About the Author

Zaha Hassan
Zaha Hassan

Senior Fellow, Middle East Program

Zaha Hassan is a human rights lawyer and a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

    Recent Work

  • Article
    The Board of Peace and Funding for Gaza Reconstruction: On Whose Account?
      • Zaha Hassan

      Zaha Hassan, Charles H. Johnson

  • Article
    By Endorsing the U.S. Gaza Plan, the UN Security Council Elevates “Rule by Law” Over Rule of Law
      • Zaha Hassan

      Zaha Hassan

Zaha Hassan
Senior Fellow, Middle East Program
Zaha Hassan
SecurityNorth AmericaUnited StatesMiddle EastIsraelPalestine

Carnegie does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.

More Work from Carnegie China

  • Commentary
    Emissary
    Trump and Xi Are Angling for Three Years of Stability

    But their "principal to principal" model will only be as effective as the political strength of each leader back home.

      • Damien Ma

      Damien Ma

  • Commentary
    China Sells Stability Amid American Volatility

    U.S. unpredictability has allowed China to capitalize on its positioning as the “responsible great power”. Paradoxically, the more China wins the perception game, the more likely expectations will rise for Beijing to deliver not just words but to demonstrate with its deeds.

      Chong Ja Ian

  • Commentary
    When It Comes to Superpower Geopolitics, Malaysia Is Staunchly Nonpartisan

    For Malaysia, the conjunction that works is “and” not “or” when it comes to the United States and China.

      Elina Noor

  • Commentary
    Today’s Rare Earths Conflict Echoes the 1973 Oil Crisis — But It’s Not the Same

    Regulation, not embargo, allows Beijing to shape how other countries and firms adapt to its terms.

      Alvin Camba

  • Commentary
    China’s Mediation Offer in the Thailand-Cambodia Border Dispute Sheds Light on Beijing’s Security Role in Southeast Asia

    The Thai-Cambodian conflict highlights the limits to China's peacemaker ambition and the significance of this role on Southeast Asia’s balance of power.

      Pongphisoot (Paul) Busbarat

Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie China
Carnegie China logo, white
Keck Seng Tower133 Cecil Street #10-01ASingapore, 069535Phone: +65 9650 7648
  • Research
  • About
  • Experts
  • Events
  • Contact
  • Careers
  • Privacy
  • For Media
Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie China
© 2026 Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. All rights reserved.