Disagreements on the Negotiation Process of the Camp David Summit

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

A narrative based on collective memory is difficult to deconstruct and functions as a barrier to negotiations. Given that narratives play an important role in determining the flow of the negotiations and that every new generation on both sides is raised with this narrative of insecurity in mind, the gap of conflict is widened through a hardening of attitudes amplified by the delay of resolving the stalemate. Connecting the gap to security arguments, the gap is further widened when collective memory functions as the key in altering the status quo especially in asymmetrical conflict where the weaker group fears the total domination of the other and contests the imbalance by resorting to violence. A clash in security narratives is seen: Palestinians justify their violent actions by trying to balance out with Israel claiming that they feel powerless and fear the loss of dignity, while Israelis justify their actions citing issues of threat and security. As seen in the eruption of the second intifada, Palestinian riots occurred after events that affected their sense of security. First, Ariel Sharon’s visit to the Temple Mount reminded the Palestinians of their claim over East Jerusalem and saw Sharon’s visit

-Quartet of Middle east— recognizes Israel but also wants Palestinian to have their own state. They struggle to find a way for peace. There are different resolutions that have been suggested such as the Oslo Peace Accords in 1993, Road map for peace, Camp David Summit 2000, etc. but it all failed.

The big question we ask ourselves today is, will Israel and Palestine ever agree to stop fighting? The conflict between Israel and Palestine has been traced all the way back to 1948 through 2005 in The Israel Palestine Land Settlement Problem, written by Charles Rowley and Jennis Taylor. However, this conflict did not end in 2005. This article was written in 2006, so anything within the last 10 years is not included. The conflict between the two counties still continues to this day and still remains a major problem. Israelis and Arabs have been fighting over Gaza on and off for decades now. The three issues laid out in this article are the four major wars that took place, the refugee problem, and the conflict between religions. It concludes with the road map to peace. Throughout his whole book, The Israel-Palestine Conflict, Gelvin speaks of the same historical events that occurred between Israel and Palestine, while the article reveals there are still other conflicts, the land settlement problem has been the major conflict between Israel and Palestine since 1948.

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

Against a backdrop of an ever increasing number of internal conflicts and the crash of conventional means of conflict resolution to attain a resilient peace in divided societies, this paper presents a two-track approach to peacekeeping and conflict resolution. One track is represented by peacemaking, defined as endeavors at finding a resolution to the issues in conflict at the political leadership level. The other track, peacebuilding, refers to contact proposals at the grassroots level targeting at the enhancement of intergroup relations. After a conversation of role of grassroots peacebuilding in a peace process some groundwork findings on the bond between peacemaking and peacebuilding in two divided societies, Palestine and Israel, will be discussed.

In the fall of 1978, Carter invited Israel’s Prime Minister Menachem Begin and Egypt’s president Anwar Sabat to discuss with Carter at Camp David. Between September 5th and September 19th, 1978, Carter shuttled between Israeli and Egyptian delegations, hammering out the terms of peace. Consequently, Begin and Sabat reached a historic agreement: Israel would withdraw from the entire Sinai Peninsula, and the U.S. would establish monitoring posts to ensure that neither side attacked the other; Israel and Egypt would recognize each others governments and sign a peace treaty; and Israel pledged to negotiate with the Palestinians for peace.

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

The main achievement of this deal was to establish a peace deal between Israel and Palestine, with the help of Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan. We focused on the main issue of ensuring that Palestine is given water immediately to combat the ongoing humanitarian crisis that they were encountering. This helped bring Palestine to the table in the first place. The United States also, with the help of Saudi Arabia, both promised to provide Israel and Palestine with financial aid to help them with the resettlement of people in the West Bank. The main agreement was that the resettlement will begin within the next 2 years; the United States will provide more aid to those Israelis that leave the West Bank first. Not only economic aid, but military aid was promised to Israel by the United States and Saudi Arabia to help facilitate the resettlement. The deal that was agreed to also facilitated for the creation of a transitional council, that would oversee resettlement and ensure that all sections of the deal will be upheld. This coalition between the U.S and Saudi Arabia was joined at the end of negotiations by Jordan and Egypt, and saw these four countries, along with Israel and Palestine, sign the Amman Accords. Although I was not directly involved in these talks, my team handled it perfectly and the same way in which I would have. We really felt like a unit.

By 1978 the thirty-year war that had been fought between Egypt and Israel had come to a point where there was a chance for peace. The area that had been at the center of the turmoil was the West Bank of the Jordan River and the Gaza Strip. The problem was that both countries believed that they had the rights to this land: Israel, biblically and Egypt, politically. So an invitation by President Jimmy Carter to President Anwar Sadat of Egypt and Prime Minister Menachem Begin of Israel was extended. The invitation was for a meeting in the Catoctin Mountains of Maryland at the presidential retreat, Camp David. The meeting was so that the framework of a peace agreement, known as the Camp David

On October 2, 1979, Pope John Paul II made a pivotal address to the U.N. General assembly, pointing out that “while being prepared to recognize the value of any concrete step or attempt made to settle the conflict, I want to recall that I would have no value if it did not truly represent the first stone of general overall peace in the area, a peace that, being necessarily based on equitable recognition of the rights of all, cannot fail to include the consideration and just settlement of the Palestinian question.”8

The Difficulties of the Attempts to Find a Peace Settlement Between the Palestinians and the Jews

Ethnic conflicts are well rooted in the world's history and perhaps inherent in human nature. This type of conflict is difficult to resolve as is evident in the situation in the Middle East. The ethnic conflict theory explains that it is not territory, politics, or economics that prevents the achievement of peace between the Israeli and Palestinian peoples, instead, it is a deep-seated hatred of one another that neither group can overcome. The Camp David Summit in July 2000, the most recent attempt at fostering a lasting peace is a clear example of how ethnocentrism can prevents success.

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.

The Paris Peace Conference took place in January 1919 at Versailles near Paris. The purpose of the gathering was to build up peace after World War I. In spite of the fact that about thirty countries took part, the agents of the United Kingdom, France, the United States, and Italy wound up noticeably known as the "Enormous Four." The "Huge Four" commanded the procedures that prompted the detailing of the Treaty of Versailles, a settlement that finished World War I. The Treaty of Versailles explained the bargains came to at the meeting.