Success and Shortcomings of the Oslo Process from the Israeli Point of View - Essay Example

Assess the success and shortcomings of the Oslo process from the Israeli point of view The Oslo process refers to the political process between Israel and Palestine. This process was started in September 13 of the year 1993, when Israel and Palestine signed the Declaration of Principles (Rynhold 5). The main objective of the Oslo process was to bring to an end the conflict between the Israelis and Palestinians and enable them to reach an agreement. The Oslo process did not however, succeed in ending the conflict between the Israelis and Palestinians, as it collapsed before achieving its objective. Nonetheless, despite its failure, the Oslo process had made achieved considerable success as well. This paper assesses the success and shortcomings of the Oslo process from the Israeli point of view. This will help to learn lessons, which can be adopted in future political processes between Israeli and Palestine. In order to assess the success and shortcomings of the Oslo process from the Israeli point of view, it is important to consider the national goals of Israel. According to Brom (92), the national goal of Israel is to have full Israel sovereignty over all parts of the historical land of Israel. Basing on this, it can be argued that the Oslo process failed, since it contradicted the main national goal of the Israelis. This process then, according to Israelis, was flawed. It was quite clear that in order for the Oslo process to ensure an agreement between the Israelis and Palestinians, the territory of the historical land of Israelis had to be divided between the Palestinians and Israelis. In addition, the national vision of Israelis to ensure the existence of Israel as a democratic nation state of the Jewish people. Therefore, Israel expected that any political process with Palestinians would be based on their principle of two states for two peoples (Brom 93). However, this vision is considered unrealistic, and today, Israel is far away from achieving this vision. Nonetheless, the Oslo process failed in ending the status quo. Today, Israel is still pushing towards the achievement of a bi-national state, as it still retains the West Bank, and continues to expand its settlement enterprise. The Oslo process did not ensure the security of Israel. During the process, Israel had to take security risks. For instance, when Palestinian labourers were allowed to work Israel, this was a security risk to Israel (Brom 95). It is also believed that the Oslo process encouraged the Palestinians to embrace violence and resist the occupation of Israeli through armed protests. Therefore, the Oslo process gave the Palestinians many expectations, thus making them resist occupation of the Israelis and embrace violence (Rynhold 11). However, despite the failures, there are considerable goals that Oslo achieved, which would have brought Israel closer to its objectives, and at the same time help in ending the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. First, the Oslo process led to the disengagement of Israel from Gaza strip. It is considered that without the Oslo process, Israel would not have achieved this. This aspect was an important step in ensuring that there was a separation between the political entity of Israel and Palestine. In addition, the Oslo process led to a security barrier between the two political entities. There was considerable separation from the West Bank, giving the entities a notion of separateness (Brom 93-4). Another success of the Oslo process is that it resulted in broad support among Israelis and Palestinians for the two-state solution. This showed that Israel was not opposed to the implementation of the solution. In addition, the Oslo process spurred the establishment of Palestinian Authority, including the building of a Palestinian State in cooperation with the Israel’s security services. Furthermore, the Oslo process succeeded in narrowing the gap between Israel and Palestine. For instance, obstacles to the implementation of a two-state solution such as “Jerusalem united forever,” were challenged by both political entities (Brom 94). Overall, the failure of Oslo process could have been avoided. However, both the Israelis and Palestinians erred during the process, otherwise, the Oslo process would have been a success. Discuss the impact of the gap between the Israeli and Palestinian narratives in perpetuating the Israeli-Palestinian conflict The conflict between the Israeli and the Palestinians has existed for many decades. Although various ways to bring to an end this conflict have been sought, these have failed to achieve the objective. Nonetheless, there are different factors that are considered to perpetuate the conflict between the Israelis and Palestinians. This essay focuses on the gap between the Israeli and Palestinian narratives as a factor that perpetuates the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The Israeli and Palestinians have different and often conflicting narratives and histories. Nonetheless, the wide gap between the narratives of Israelis and Palestinians is considered to have contributed to the perpetuation of conflict between the two groups. For the narrative of each group, one learns their need of a homeland. For instance, the Israelis might base on the biblical promises to justify their right to claim the Promised Land. On the other hand, the Palestinians might feel that the land is rightfully theirs, considering they have resided in it for many centuries. Although each group has their narrative, often, people will mythologize these narratives, and use them to enhance the conflict between the two groups. According to Weintraub, the Israeli-Palestine conflict is characterized by narratives that are dignity-robbing (Web). For instance, there are stereotypes for each group, and this heightens the conflict. There is a single story for Palestinians, and these are believed to be ruthless terrorists, who have no respect for human life, even for their own. In addition, another single story of Palestinians is that they victims, who have been forced to adopt violent resistance. For this reason therefore, the Palestinians can be seen to have adopted a victim mentality, and might justify their attacks of the Israelis, citing them as defence from the Israelis. On the other hand, the single story of the Israelis is that they are aggressive, imperialistic, and military brutes, who do not respect human rights and are impervious to suffering, even their own. Another single story of Israelis is that they are heroic and are victims that are morally superior, but surrounded by gross hatred (Weintraub Web). For this reason therefore, the Jewish people might believe that their involvement in war serves as defence from the Palestinians. Therefore, this can be used to justify the Israeli’s violence in the 1948 war, as a form of defence from the aggressive Arabs. According to Bar-Siman-Tov, the historical narratives of the Palestinians and the Israelis are conflicting. This therefore, makes it challenging to identify any group that can be held responsible for injustice of the other group. In addition, this has made it quite impossible for an effective remedy for the conflict to be reached. Therefore, the end result is that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict remains a classic case that exhibits the relationship between peace and justice. This is mainly because both groups consider the conflict in terms of injustice and unfairness. Therefore, both groups have become barriers to the resolution of the conflict. In conclusion, the gap between the Israeli and Palestinian narratives has perpetuated the conflict between the two groups. This is mainly because each group, using their narratives justifies its actions in the conflict. This way, it is challenging for an agreement to be reached, since each group believes that they are right, thus their actions in the conflict are justified. Therefore, for peace and an agreement to be achieved, it is imperative that the gap between the Israeli and Palestinian narratives is narrowed. This can be achieved by having each group to listen to the narrative of each other, and critique their own narratives and that of the other. Works Cited Bar-Siman-Tov Yaacov. “Justice and Fairness as Barriers to the Resolution of the Israeli- Palestinian Conflict.” 178-227. 2011. Web. Brom Shlomo. “Twenty Years since Oslo: The Balance Sheet.” Strategic Assessment, 16 (2): 91-104, 2013. Rynhold Jonathan. “The Failure of the Oslo Process: Inherently Flawed or Flawed Implementation?” Mideast Security and Policy Studies No. 76: 1-30, 2008. Weintraub Melissa. “An “Eye for an Eye” & the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: It’s Not What You Think.” 2014. Web. Read More