Can Dayton model offer path to Israeli-Palestinian peace? Opinion piece by Financial Times

In a recent opinion piece for the Financial Times, Dahlia Scheindlin, Israeli journalist, draws a provocative comparison between the Bosnian peace process of the 1990s and the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

While at first glance Bosnia may seem like a poor parallel, burdened by corruption, ethnic grievances and a cumbersome constitutional system, the piece argues that the Dayton Accords nonetheless offer valuable lessons for ending wars that otherwise appear intractable. The article suggests that in contrast to temporary ceasefires, only a comprehensive settlement, backed by robust outside intervention, can halt violence in the Middle East.

The central argument is that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has become mired in short-term fixes rather than lasting solutions. The Financial Times piece highlights how negotiations in the past decade have mostly focused on temporary ceasefires in Gaza, none of which have addressed root causes.

By contrast, Richard Holbrooke, the American diplomat who brokered the Dayton Accords, deliberately sought a permanent solution to Bosnia’s war rather than a provisional truce. The opinion warns that another temporary ceasefire in Gaza would merely guarantee a future resurgence of violence, suggesting that only comprehensive final-status talks can bring genuine peace.

A second lesson from Dayton is the role of outside powers. In Bosnia, it was NATO’s intervention against Serb forces that broke the stalemate and enabled serious negotiations. While direct military involvement is unlikely in the Middle East, the author stresses that Israelis and Palestinians cannot reach a settlement alone.

The active involvement of external powers, possibly to the point of imposing terms, is presented as a prerequisite for progress. The Dayton experience, where international actors also helped implement and monitor the agreement, is cited as proof that peace frameworks need sustained outside enforcement.

Third, the article draws attention to how Dayton institutionalised coexistence between warring ethnic groups. Bosnia’s constitution mandated representation for Bosniaks, Croats and Serbs in shared institutions, even if the system has proved unwieldy. For Israel and Palestine, the framework would not mean a single shared state, but rather a structured arrangement for co-operation and separation across areas such as security, economy and freedom of movement.

The author argues that if such mechanisms could function in Bosnia, despite atrocities like the siege of Sarajevo and the Srebrenica genocide, then they should not be dismissed as impossible in the Middle East.

Finally, the Financial Times commentary challenges the widespread notion that peace requires mutual trust. Citing surveys that show persistent ethnic mistrust in Bosnia nearly three decades after Dayton, the author argues that coexistence can be managed institutionally even in the absence of reconciliation. The emphasis is on ending violence and occupation first, with trust left to develop later, if at all.

The piece recognises Bosnia’s flaws — corruption, ethnic division, and stalled EU integration — but insists these should not overshadow the core achievement of Dayton: three decades without a return to mass killing. The same, the article suggests, could be achieved for Israelis and Palestinians if external actors pushed for a comprehensive, permanent settlement instead of allowing the cycle of war and fragile ceasefires to continue.

By Sabina Mammadli