Why The Oslo Peace Process Failed To Deliver The Promise Of A Just And Lasting Peace - Essay Example

REASONS WHY THE OSLO PEACE PROCESS OF THE 1990S FAILED TO DELIVER LASTING PEACE BETWEEN ISRAEL AND THE PALESTINIANS By Institution 7th, September, 2012 Table of Contents Table of Contents 2 Introduction 3 Overview of the Israel-Palestinian Conflict 3 Reasons Why The Oslo Peace Process Of The 1990s Failed To Deliver The Promise Of A Just And Lasting Peace Between Israel And The Palestinians Introduction Some years ago, there was a sensation that the Israel –Palestine conflict would end. The expectation had been elicited by the signing of the Oslo Accord. However, the Oslo process collapsed unexpectedly resulting in extension of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The conflict between Israel and Palestine continues to draw more attention from different countries and international organizations. The conflict has been in existence for quite a long period irrespective of the many attempts to resolve the issue. As time goes, the situation becomes worse due to the increasing violence and despair. Moreover, international organizations appear to be despairing and hopes that peace will be restored in Middle East are fading. By the end of 19th century, two opposing nationalistic movements were born in Middle East. One movement was born amongst the Jews while the other movement was borne amongst the Arabs. Each of the two groups intended to attain sovereignty for their people. With time, the two groups started conflicting which initiated the Israeli Palestinian conflict, which is at times viewed as a conflict between Arabs and Israelites. The Oslo accords were officially signed on September 13, 1993 between the government of Israel and the PLO. The singing was done in Washington, DC following months of negotiations. This paper focuses on the reasons why the Oslo Peace Process of the 1990s failed to deliver the promise of a just and lasting peace between Israel and the Palestinians. Overview of the Israel-Palestinian Conflict It has been more than 50 years since the State of Israel was established. Ever since then, Israel and Palestine have been in recurring conflicts. The conflict between Israel and Palestine started in the 19th Century. In 1967, Israel occupied Gaza and West Bank, which resulted in aggressiveness between the Jews and Palestinians. With time, the Jews continued to settle in the disputed land. The settlement was characterized by massive constructions on the disputed territory. The Palestinians reacted by forming a resistant movement referred to as Intifada (sdonline 2011). The movement was involved in aggressive activities such as stone throwing and was mainly located in the Gaza strip as well as West Bank. This was followed by numerous skirmishes between the Israelites and Palestinians. Eventually, there was an outbreak of the intifada. Israel tried to curb the confrontations by using its army to punish Palestinian protesters resisting occupation of Palestinian land by the Jews settlers. As the confrontations intensified, PLO and other Palestinians in the Diaspora felt the need for restoration of peace between Israel and Palestine to end the conflicts (Rynhold 2008; Rabie 2007-2012; Rynhold 2009). In around 1990, U.S. was interested in the several conflicts within the Middle East including the Israel Palestinian conflict. US wanted a peace conference between the warring Arab countries, an Idea that was rejected by Yitzhak Shamir, the Israel Prime minister. The US government continued to pressure Israel and a conference was eventually held on 30 October 1991. The conference is popularly known as the Madrid Conference. The US president George Bush Sr. together with Mikhail Gorbachev, the Soviet President, facilitated it. Nonetheless, Palestinian was force to form a joint delegation with Jordan for them to attend this conference. Later on, Rabin replaced Shamir as the Israel Prime minister. However, the conflict between Israel and Palestine was far from being settled (Rynhold 2009). The Oslo Accord signed in 1993 was the first face-to-face accord ever signed between the Israel government and the Palestine Liberation Organization. The Accord was signed after months of secret negotiations between the two parties that were being facilitated by Fafo institute. The Accord was named after Oslo, a place in Norway where the negotiations were being conducted. Mahmoud Abbas signed the Accord as representative of PLO, Shimon Peres represented Israel, Warren Christopher represented U.S., and Adrei Kozyrev represented Russia. Also present in the accord signing ceremony were Bill Clinton, the U.S president PLO chairman Yasser Arafat and Yitzhak Rabin, the then prime minister of Israel (Rynhold 2008). The Oslo Peace Process of the 1990s I993 marked an important year characterized by the most fundamental progress in the attempts to resolve the conflict between Palestine and Israel. Although the Oslo accord did not succeed, it is still considered the greatest achievement in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict resolution. There were great hopes that the conflict was ending when the leaders from the two conflicting sides shook hands in White House in 1993. The accord had resulted after a period of negotiations. Following the long-standing conflict between Israel and Palestine, the Israel government and Palestine Liberation Organizations started secret negotiations that aimed at restoring peace between the warring groups. The series of discussion are commonly referred to as the Oslo Accords or the Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government Arrangements (Rynhold 2009). The Oslo Accords entailed a process that was established with the aim of resolving issues that were causing the conflict. Although the Accord was not a treaty, it was hoped that it would enhance the peace talks and lead to eventual signing of peace treaty. The agreement was important and created appropriate environment. It was hoped that the negotiations would lead to eventual resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This is because the accord enabled the start of direct negotiations between the government of Israel and the PLO. It was thought that the accord would pave way for extensive negotiations and yield permanent results. However, Israel continued occupying the disputed land in West Bank and Gaza Strip. Additionally, Israel went ahead to confiscated 40,000 acres of Palestinian land. Moreover, Israeli continued to control a larger percentage of Palestinian population as well as other resources. Therefore, the Oslo process failed to resolve the issue in that the Israelites continued to occupy the disputed land. The accord strengthened Israel domination over Palestine but in a different way (Rynhold 2008; Rynhold 2009). After the signing of the Accord, most people thought that the negotiation would lead to settlement of the conflict between Palestine and Israel. However, the two countries did not conform to the agreements in the signed accord. Although PLO agreed that Palestinians were supposed to let Israel remain in peace, Rabin, the Israel prime minister did not recognize the sovereignty of Palestine. Additionally, Israel did not respect the right of Palestinians to live in peace. On the contrary, Rabin considered PLO a representative of Palestinian people and not the Palestinian government. Some people argue that the Oslo process was flawed from the start. However, others agree that the process was progressing well until “spoilers” wrecked the almost successful peace restoration process (Rabie 2007-2012). Questionable Terms of the Oslo Accord The main aim of the negotiation that led to signing of the Oslo accord was to institute a Palestinian interim self-government. This would be done through implementation of UN Security Council Resolution 242, which was opposed to acquisition of territory through war. This resolution would prevent Israel from occupying the disputed land in Gaza and West Bank. Therefore, Israel was required to withdraw its defense forces from the territories it had forcefully acquired during the 1967 conflict. The Oslo I accord suggested for formation of Palestinian interim self-government. The Palestinian National Authority was the name of the suggested government, which was supposed to administer the terrain under its control. The accord required Israel to withdraw its defense forces from certain parts of the Gaza Strip as well as West Bank. The Accord was supposed to last for five years during which Palestine and Israel would negotiate for a long lasting agreement. The accord was thus required to function from 1993 up to 1996. Since the mediators hoped to continue with the negotiations, they overlooked issues such as the position of Jerusalem, security issue, and positions of the borders. Additionally, the accord did not include the directions such as how to deal with the issue of Palestinians refuges (Rabie 2007-2012). The period after signing of the Oslo accord was characterized by continued conflicts between Israelites and Palestinians. In February 1994, Dr. Baruch Goldstein who was an American-Jewish Israeli settler used a gun to murder 29 Palestinians and injure others in a mosque located in West Bank. This was just one of violent actions that were being done by the Israeli settlers in West Bank city of Hebron. Irrespective of this violence, the Israeli government did nothing to advance the peace negotiations. Instead, Rabin’s government imposed a curfew on the Palestinian residents living in Hebron. After assassination of Rabin, Ehud Barak took over. Netanyahu later succeeded him. Throughout this period, the conflict between Israel and Palestine continued (Rabie 2007-2012). In 1995, Oslo II accord was signed. However, the accord did not address the issue of Palestinian statehood. This agreement marked the end of the first phase of the PLO versus Israel negotiations. The accord was considered to be highly significant and provided for election of a Palestinian council and withdraw of Israel defense forces from area occupied by Palestinians. Additionally, the territory occupied by Israel and Palestine was divided into three parts namely A, B, and C. Territory A was to be under the control of Palestine, C under Israel control while B was to be governed by both. Israelites were in charge of security while Palestinian was supposed to exercise civilian authority. It was hoped that this accord would end Israel domination over the Palestinians. However, Israelite leaders such as Netanyahu, the leader of Likud, were opposed to the Oslo II. They viewed it as a total surrender of Israel to Palestine authority. The death of Rabin was a blow to the peace process since the leaders who succeeded him were greatly opposed to the Oslo accord (Rynhold 2009; Shlaim 1999). Explanations of Why the Oslo Accord Failed In 1993, a Clinton administration thought that they had succeeded in resolving the long-standing conflict between Israel and Palestine. However, the feeling did not last for long before Israel and Palestine were back into war. The collapse of the Oslo process resulted in the question on what could have gone wrong. There have been numerous suggestions on what led to the eventual collapse of the promising Oslo Accord. Some people argue that the Oslo Accord was flawed and was incapable of resolving the conflict. However, most people agree that it was the most promising solution to the Israeli-Palestine conflict (Rabie 2007-2012). Conservatives claim that the Oslo process was flawed from the initial stages and its failure was inevitable. This is because the Arab world lacks democracy, which is crucial for resolution of the Palestine Israel conflict, which is now considered a conflict between Israel and the Arab countries. Additionally, Rabin’s government was opposed to the Oslo accord. Moreover, his government disregarded implementation of the UN Resolution 242 (sdonline 2011). Rynhold (2009) argues that the Oslo process collapsed due to lack of realistic prerequisites that are required for liberal peace building. In his opinion, the peace building process lacked realistic factors that are necessary for resolution of any war related conflict. The mutual trust between Israel and Palestine was broken down by the style of negotiation that was being utilized. Israel continued to allow settlement of its citizens in the disputed area. Therefore, Israel is often blamed for initiating the collapse of the Oslo process since it was unwilling to concede to the territorial concessions. Additionally, the Israel Prime Minister, Ehud Barak toughened the negotiation, which resulted in loss of trust from the Palestinian side. Ehud is also blamed for undermining the PLO leader, Yasser Arafat resulting in lack of conviction between the two negotiating parties (Rynhold 2008; Louise 2005; Guyatt 1998). There is an argument that the Oslo Accords would not have succeeded since they neutralized international laws. The first Oslo accord, which was also referred to as the Declaration of Principles (DOP) eliminated the use of International law in resolution of the Palestinian-Israel conflict. Other undesirable features of the Oslo accord included redeployment of Israel forces from Gaza Strip and West bank. Another reason that could have led to the failure of the Oslo Accord is the lack of meaningful strategy or methodology that could have been used in resolving the conflict. Although the talks had been going on for months, there was no clearly set strategy on how the conflict would be resolved. Therefore, any disagreements no matter how minute were likely to dissuade either of the group from further negotiations (Rynhold 2008; sdonline 2011; Shlaim 1999). Most liberals claim that the collapse of the Oslo process can be attributed to poor implementation of the peace-building model. Liberals claim that the secret negotiations had helped build trust between Israel and PLO. Therefore, the conflict was in the process of being resolved. They claim that the mutual trust that had been built together with gains from economic integrations would have been adequate to result in a permanent solution. However, the liberals claim that problems arose during the implementation stages. This was because the two parties did not have sufficient skills to implement the accord. Additionally, the parties lost the willingness to conclude the negotiations, which contributed to the eventual collapse of the peace talk and denunciation of the Oslo Accord (Rabie 2007-2012; Shlaim 1999). The Oslo Accord also called the (DOP) was not implemented. Although the Palestinians, led by PLO respected the arrangements included in the accord, Rabin did not attempt to implement the objectives set by the accord. Rabin had been resistant in initiating any peace process, right from his election. Rabin never took the Oslo accord seriously. Other that capitalizing on its implementation, he initiated bureaucratic and legal committees, which slowed down the implementation process. Ultimately, it was clear that the reconciliation was fading away. In addition to the endless committees, the Israelites continued to settle in the disputed land (Rynhold 2009). Realists argue that the Oslo process failed to generate a solution due to constraints that were evidence right from the start of the negotiations. They claim that it was not yet time to resolve the conflict. This is because the conflict was still in the initial stages and required time to ripen. The attempts to resolve the conflict at such a stage worsened the situation (Friedman 2003). The existing antagonism between Israel and Palestine could not allow for economic integration, which is necessary in supporting war related conflict resolution process. The attempts to initiate negotiations between the two parties deteriorated the friction. Additionally, political obstacles between the two parties resulted. Consequently, the Oslo process, which was meant to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict became overburdened and could not withstand the pressure. Instead of resolving the conflict, the process ended up deteriorating the situation (Rynhold 2009; Said 1995). When Netanyahu took over as Israel Prime minister, he swore to crush the Oslo accord. He wanted the accord reciprocated and his administration blocked all the channels for any negotiations with the Palestinians. However, pressure from US force Netanyahu to concede Palestinian territory through Hebron Protocol of 1997. Therefore, one of the major reasons for the failure of the Oslo accord was the tendency of the Likud government to renege the deal made through the Oslo accord (Rynhold 2009). The Palestinians resorted to violence, which led to loss of trust between Palestinians and Israelites making further negotiations impossible. Additionally, there was great imbalance in power between PLO and the Israelite government, which resulted in Palestine domination by Israel (Shlaim 1999). Most of the principles accomplished by the accord were in favor of Israel. Most provisions that would have favored Palestine were ignored. The final blow on the Oslo accord was failure of US to pressure Israel to withdraw from the territories it had occupied. The Palestinians resorted to confrontations when they realized that the Oslo accord was yielding no results. By 2000, most Palestinians and Israelites had lost hope on the Oslo Accords and the collapse was inevitable (Rabie 2007-2012; Louise 2005) Implications of the Collapse of the Oslo Accord Since the collapse of the Oslo Accord, the conflict between Israel and Palestine appears to have intensified. The border between Israel and Palestine is characterized by frequent waves of violence. The violence often results in loss of numerous lives. More discouraging is the perception that there might be no solution to this conflict in the near future (sdonline 2011; Said, 1995). There is an existing claim that the Oslo process could have contribute to heightening of the conflict. This is because there was intensified terror between Palestine and Israel immediately after the collapse of the Oslo Accord. The period between the signing of the accord in 1993 and its collapse was characterized by uprisings. The situation in West bank and Gaza depreciated dramatically, which was attributed to the continued Israel occupation of the disputed areas. This contributed to the current uprisings that are some of the bloodiest encounters ever witnessed (Rynhold 2009; Friedman 2003). Conclusion The Israeli-Palestine conflict is considered one of the most obstinate conflicts in the 20th century. In 1993, there was great hope that the conflict would be resolved. Israel and PLO signed the renowned Oslo Accord, which is still considered the most significant achievement in the resolution of the Israeli-Palestine conflict. However, the joy was short lived following the collapse of the Oslo accord in 2000. The big question is on what could have led to the collapse of the almost terminated peace talk. There have been numerous suggestions. Some people argue that the Oslo process was flawed from the start and the collapse was inevitable. Others claim that problems arose at different stages and accumulate without being resolved resulting in the eventual collapse of the talks. Ever since the Oslo Accord collapsed, several people have come up with explanations on what could have led to the collapse. Some argue that the whole process was faulty. The styles used for the negotiations, the management of the process and the strategies used to implement the accord were erroneous and the collapse was inevitable. Others claim that Israel failed to honor their agreements in addition to being discourteous towards PLO, which hampered the negotiations. Rabin’s government is largely blamed for the failure of the Oslo accord. Rabin was opposed to the agreement and disregarded the PLO leaders. He considered PLO to be a representative of the Palestinian and not the Palestine government. Therefore, his administration continued to allow the settlement of Israelites in the disputed land, which was an obstacle to the implementation of the UN Security Council Resolution 242, which opposes acquisition of territories through war. Although the negotiations aimed at establishing Palestinian Interim Self-Government Authority to reign for a period of not more than 5 years, it was never implemented. The Oslo accord failed to address issues such as the continued settlement of Israelites in West Bank and Gaza Strip. This resulted into frequent encounters between the Israelites and Palestinians. Even after the signing of the Oslo Accord, Israel defense forces continued to occupy the disputed territory, which was against the terms of the accord. Works Cited Friedman, R 2003, Shattered Dreams: The Failure Of The Peace Process In The Middle East 1995-2002, Other Press, New York. Guyatt, N 1998, The Absence of Peace: Understanding the Israel-Palestinian Conflict, Zed Books, London. Louise F (Ed) 2005, International Relations In The Middle East, Oxford university Press, oxford pp. 241-61.  Rabie, M 2007-2012, The Oslo Peace Process and The Palestinian-Israeli Conflict, International Institute for Ethic-Group Rights and Regionalism, Volume Middle East II, Available at http://www.intereg.org/cms/index.php?page=the-oslo-peace-process. Rynhold, J 2008, The Failure of the Oslo Process:Inherently Flawed or Flawed Implementation? Mideast Security and Policy Studies, Issue 76, pp. 1-30. Rynhold, J 2009. Liberalism and the Collapse of the Oslo Peace Process in the Middle East, The Whitehead Journal of Diplomacy and International Relations, 31(3), pp. 45-57. Said, E 1995, Peace And Discontents: Gaza-Jericho, 1993-1995, Vintage Books, London.  Sdonline 2011, The Peace Process and Israeli Domestic Politics in the 1990s, Journal of the Research Group on Democracy, Online: Available at http://sdonline.org/32/the-peace-process-and-israeli-domestic-politics-in-the-1990s/. Shlaim, A 1999, War and Peace in the Middle East: A Concise History, Penguin Books, London.   Read More