"Security is something that serves Israeli interests and Palestinian interests. You have a common threat and you have a common enemy and it's important to deal with that as partners"
About this Quote
Ross is selling a familiar piece of peace-process pragmatism: if you can’t agree on history, borders, or theology, agree on keeping people alive. The line is built to sound self-evident, almost managerial, because its real job is to reframe the conflict away from competing national narratives and toward a shared “problem set” that technocrats can coordinate. “Security” is the one arena where American mediators have long believed progress is most bankable: measurable, fundable, and enforceable.
The phrase “common threat” does heavy rhetorical lifting. It suggests symmetry where the lived experience is radically asymmetrical: Israel is a sovereign state with one of the region’s most capable militaries; Palestinians are divided between rival authorities, with limited coercive power and a daily reality shaped by occupation, blockade, and raids. By describing a “common enemy,” Ross also smuggles in a strategic ask: align Palestinian security priorities with Israeli and US definitions of militancy. Partnership, in this framing, often means Palestinian forces policing Palestinian society in exchange for incremental mobility, aid, or political access.
Context matters: this is the Oslo-era logic that security cooperation can create “confidence” and then politics will follow. Decades on, many Palestinians read that promise as inverted: security becomes the process, while statehood becomes the perpetually deferred reward. For Israeli audiences, the pitch is reassurance that engagement can reduce risk without conceding core claims. For Washington, it’s a way to keep the diplomatic machine running by privileging the one area where it can claim deliverables, even when the endgame remains unresolved.
The phrase “common threat” does heavy rhetorical lifting. It suggests symmetry where the lived experience is radically asymmetrical: Israel is a sovereign state with one of the region’s most capable militaries; Palestinians are divided between rival authorities, with limited coercive power and a daily reality shaped by occupation, blockade, and raids. By describing a “common enemy,” Ross also smuggles in a strategic ask: align Palestinian security priorities with Israeli and US definitions of militancy. Partnership, in this framing, often means Palestinian forces policing Palestinian society in exchange for incremental mobility, aid, or political access.
Context matters: this is the Oslo-era logic that security cooperation can create “confidence” and then politics will follow. Decades on, many Palestinians read that promise as inverted: security becomes the process, while statehood becomes the perpetually deferred reward. For Israeli audiences, the pitch is reassurance that engagement can reduce risk without conceding core claims. For Washington, it’s a way to keep the diplomatic machine running by privileging the one area where it can claim deliverables, even when the endgame remains unresolved.
Quote Details
| Topic | Peace |
|---|
More Quotes by Dennis
Add to List
