Article Review: The Rise and Fall of the Oslo Accords
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. According to the chapter, getting to the White House lawn that day in 1993 was an arduous process that took many twist
The west had been essential to the nation’s creation, and exerted its power in Israel. Israel’s leaders developed allegiances with western countries which had been essential in the formation of their country. Tension in the area grew, both inside and outside of the state, and violence was used against both sides. However, measures were not taken to undue the problems that had arisen from the unfair nature of the agreement. “Palestinians had been branded as ignorant, hostile, and violent” and non-Jewish groups found it difficult to practice their religion as they had before. Despite the obvious inequities that were growing, the west did little to alleviate the pain that it played a large part in creating. It seemed as if “People in the west seem so taken with material things, It’s as if they have nothing in their spirit, so they need to surround themselves
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
In 1960, John F. Kennedy was elected as President and his presidency took a vastly different turn than that of his predecessors. President Kennedy approached the Israel-Palestine crisis with a goal of achieving peace between the two, rather than simply a settlement. He wished to establish a better relationship with the Arabs and fully supported Arab self-determination. Kennedy’s formula
Many Palestinians are religious, and when the Israelis seized their homeland, they took away many of their sacred sites. Palestine is home to a multitude of sacred sites such as Jerusalem. As you can see by the changes from Document 1 to Document 2, in the span of about sixty years, Palestine has endeavored many changes. Palestine originally was composed of predominately Israeli occupied territories, but that fact is not correct today. Both, Jews and Muslims find Jerusalem sacred, which could lead to future problems. When attempting to establish a peace settlement, there will be vast conflict about it; neither group of people would be willing to give up such a holy city where so many vital biblical events have occurred. Religion is extremely powerful and important in places such as these, so it would be difficult and highly unlikely for one group to compromise. If anything, this may result in further violence. Thus, people’s religion contributes a large factor to the reason why there is a small chance for a peaceful settlement between the Israelis and the Palestinians.
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
The Arab-Israeli conflict, initiated over one-hundred years ago and still continuing, has confounded both policy-makers and citizens; despite the best efforts of foreign leaders, only one substantial accord has materialized in the decades of negotiations: the Israel-Egypt peace treaty of 1979. Before one undertakes to understand such a complex topic as the Israel-Egypt peace treaty, however, a broad knowledge of the historical background of the two countries involved is essential to understanding the motivations and aspirations of both parties, which in turn will shed light on the peace treaty itself. Foreign policy can’t be viewed in a vacuum; rather, each country must be viewed as a nation with legitimate historical and political
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.
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
There is no dispute that the Middle East, for the past century, has been a region plagued with tension and conflict. Differences in religion and ethnicity have been the source for hundreds of thousands of deaths, and the progression of those issues have shown very little evidence of slowing down as the bloodshed continues. Many parties on the global scale fear that the combination of evolving technology and weaponry, and desire to harness nuclear power, is fueling the hatred that some of the countries in the area have for one another and will eventually lead to an extremely disastrous nuclear war. As a result, international global organizations, such as the United Nations, have been working to prevent such an outcome. They are
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 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.