Case Study: The Kerry Initiative

Peace, a wish every nation struggles to gain, with war taking over our history and the present day. But when speaking of peace two countries that could be looked at a little longer are Israel and Palestine, these states have struggled with war and violence for years. It seems they have been stuck in an ongoing war for years, not only with other nations but also each other. The Middle East as a whole, has been stuck in a dark shadow, because of extremism and terror which are stopping progress and killing innocents. In Bush’s speech “Israel-Palestine Two-State Solution” his overall purpose is to bring peace within these two states and to lower the rates of violence along with war. Which both are two major key elements when speaking of these states, the having been engulfed by war for years and seem to be completely surrounded by it.Bush’s speech is directed to Israelis and palestinians, he delivers a solution to help violence within their states, which is a comprehensive plan. He makes himself appear truthful by making direct eye contact with various

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict has proven to be one of the most complex and “intractable” conflicts of modern history – or as some may even add – of all time. And after many decades of failed attempts at peacemaking in this region, there still seems to be no conceivable end to the conflict. During those same decades, most of the parties involved as well as the international community have embraced the idea of a two-state solution, but the question we pose today asks whether this solution is still a viable option considering the present context, and if not, is it finally time to consider a one-state solution? This essay will argue that although a two-state solution remains the more

Any reference to conflict turns history into a reservoir of blame. In the presence of conflict, narratives differ and multiply to delegitimize the opponent and to justify one’s own action. Narratives shape social knowledge. The Israeli Palestinian conflict, both Jews and Muslims, view the importance of holding the territories through religious, ideological, and security lenses, based on belief that Palestine was given by divine providence and that the land belongs to either the Israelis or Palestinian’s ancestral home. Understanding these perspectives is required for understanding Palestinians’ and especially Israel’s strategy and role in entering the Oslo peace process. Despite

Edmund Burke once said “Those who don't know history are destined to repeat it.” Unfortunately, it seems that many people who have impacted the world have had a bad history teacher, as history continues to repeat itself to this day. One of the most prime examples of this is seen in the Middle East; where the Palestinian people are fighting against the Israelis over territory in which they both believe belongs to them. It has been a dispute which has resulted in loss of homes, loss of life and loss of money. However, this is nothing new. Eugene O’Neill’s statement, “There is no present and no future, only the past happening over and over again, now” applies strongly to the situation of the past 70 years in the

Despite current misconceptions of the tensions between Muslims and Jews, the current political conflict began in the early 20th century. The Palestinians, both muslims and christians, lived in peace for centuries. Control of the city had historically, since 637 AD, been under Muslim control with guarantee of Christians’ safety, right to property, and right to practice religion. The collapse of the Ottoman Empire led to European nations colonizing many of its former lands, and the British gained control of Palestine. Social and political issues prompted European jews to flee from political unrest from their homes in Europe, and migrate to Palestine. Seeing the influx of Jews as a European colonial movement, the Arabs fought back. The British couldn’t control the violence, and in 1947 the United Nations (UN) voted to split the land into two countries. The continued political unrest in the Middle East is the cause of United States involvement.

Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon went on record calling Kerry “obsessive” and “messianic. ” Although ad-hominem attacks do little to reflect on wide-sweeping foreign policy aims of a country, it is clear that the Israelis feel as though Kerry, and on a wider basis the US, are motivated more by making themselves look like the brokers of peace, than in any actual peace settlements that would result. Ya’alon went so far as to accuse Kerry of caring only about receiving a Nobel Peace prize as his motivation behind the peace talks. Others have repeated these sentiments, as accusations flew that the apparent goal of Kerry and indeed Washington as a whole, was to use the latest round peace talks, and any potential progress resulting from them as a “bragging point”.

This essay will focus on how theorists of peace and conflict have analysed the conflict in recent history. Especially, the peace process after the first Palestinian intifada and the 1993 Oslo-agreements will be analysed. In addition, this essay will shed light on the involvement of the United States in the

A meeting between Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin and Egyptian President Anwar el-Sadat about issues occurring in the Middle East, possible solutions & conflicts, and the creation of the Camp David Accords resulted in a peace treaty. This peace treaty has put an end to the war between Israel and Egypt, promised the withdrawal of Egyptian land, as well as an open conversations about future relations between the two countries. “As we discussed these and other emotional issues, I soon realized that Begin and Sadat were personally incompatible. The sometimes petty, sometime heated arguments that arose between them when we were all in the same room convinced me it would be better if each of them spoke to me as the mediator instead of directly to the other.” Although it seemed difficult to come to a conclusion in the process, the Camp David Accords showed as a success in view of the fact that it created peace between the United States and the Middle East. “Looking back on all of the issues or events that took place, including the Camp David Accords, there is a continuity that is both discouraging and also offers some modicum of hope.” It created hope for those who were worried about the Middle East of even Jimmy Carter himself. We understand the political pitfalls involved, but the situation is getting into an extreme state, and I’m concerned that Sadat might precipitate a conflict in October, as he has

On behalf of the State Department I was involved in an Israeli foreign policy and decision-making simulation where members were to agree upon various minimal peace terms and implementations. This brief for General H. R. McMaster will provide the most thorough analysis of the outcomes from this simulation to provide the best suggestions for the United States involvement in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The opening remarks by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu were that the ministers must agree in consensus or the proposition shall not pass, the cabinet must decide on their most minimal peace terms, and at the conclusion of deliberations all ministers must agree or resign. (February 27 Minutes) Netanyahu met

According to an apocryphal story, Pope John Paul once said that he believes there are two possible solutions to the Arab-Israeli conflict, the realistic and the miraculous. The realistic being divine intervention, and the miraculous being a voluntary agreement by both parties. On September 13th, 1993, it looked like the miraculous had happened when the Oslo Accords were signed by Prime Minister Rabin and PLO Chairman Arafat on the White House South Lawn. However, the objectives of the accords were never fully implemented and the Palestinians remain stateless. Further steps toward peace, including Oslo II and Camp David, have fallen short of the goals of both sides. In the book International Relations of the Middle East the chapter titled “The Rise and Fall of the Oslo Peace Process” details the slow process of the formation of the Oslo accords, as well as attempts at implementation and the fall of the Declaration of Principles. The author outlines the events between 1990 and 2001 and makes the argument that Oslo failed because: (1) it had a bad foundation, (2) the accords did not account for the core issues of the conflict, (3) Israel did not complete of their side of the agreement, (4) Palestinian violence, (5) Israeli West Bank settlements, and (6) the failure to create a Palestinian state.

For many centuries, Judaic and Arabian societies have engaged in one of the most complicated and lengthy conflicts known to mankind, the makings of a highly difficult peace process. Unfortunately for all the world’s peacemakers the Arab-Israeli conflict, particularly the war between Israel and the Palestinian Territories, is rooted in far more then ethnic tensions. Instead of drawing attention towards high-ranking officials of the Israeli government and Hamas, focus needs to be diverted towards the more suspect and subtle international relations theory of realism which, has imposed more problems than solutions.

Keeping these thoughts in mind I will investigate some key issues that affect the progress towards peace in the region including the relationship that exists between the United States and Israel; the 2002 Road Map to Peace and why it failed; and finally the effect of Arafat?s death and the implications for the future.

After listening to the Israel-Palestine panel, it became clear to me that a two-state solution is the only viable option. The panelists from Friends of Israel, J Street U, and Jewish voices for peace all clearly stated their support for and belief in the two-state solution. From discussion during the panel, I gathered that a two-state solution would include Israel as a Jewish, democratic state that will coexist peacefully alongside and independent Palestinian state. Borders in this solution would be based on pre-1967 lines with agreed land-swaps to allow each state to incorporate large population centers on the other side, and of course, there would be compromises over Jerusalem, as well as mutual access to all holy sites.

After more than 50 years of war, terrorism, peace negotiation and human suffering, Israel and Palestine remain as far from a peaceful settlement as ever. The entire Middle Eastern region remains a cauldron waiting to reach the boiling point, a potent mixture of religious extremism, (Jewish, Christian and Islamic), mixed with oil and munitions.

Since the early 20th Century, Israelis and Palestinians have been fighting over the land between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea. With the assumption that Palestine is a state to facilitate discussion, this report sketches out the most significant elements of the conflict on the three levels defined by Kenneth Waltz, and applies the Realist theory of international relations (IR) to the “Two-State” solution.