Israel and Palestine: The Conflict Background - Research Paper Example

 ISRAEL AND PALESTINE; THE BACKGROUND OF A CONFLICT In the aftermath of the WWII and the horrors of Holocaust, the newly created United Nations with the General Assembly Resolution 181, approved the Partition Plan for Palestine, thus prompting the creation of a new state in the Middle East- Israel. Israel was proclaimed an independent state in May of 1948 (Karsh 50), and it will prove from that point into the present, that the inception of Israel created a long lasting and, often times, bloody conflict between the Jews and Palestinian Arabs. The very next day after the proclamation neighboring Arab countries attacked Israel and opened one in the series of armed conflicts that, unfortunately, are still a way of life for many Israelis and Palestinians. The war of 1948 ended victoriously for Israel, which was accepted as a member of the United Nations by majority vote at Two Hundred and Seventh Plenary Meeting on May 11, 1949. (United Nations) The years to come were rocky and the tensions flared between Israel and the neighboring Arab countries in 1967. In June of 1967, Israel launched a six day war against its Arab neighbors and swiftly occupied Gaza Strip and Sinai Peninsula from Egypt, West Bank and East Jerusalem from Jordan and Golan Heights from Syria.(BBC) For Israel, the Operation Focus was a preemptive act, as the tensions in the region were threatening to escalate on the other side. In years to come, there were more conflicts like the one in 1973, when Egyptian and Syrian forces unsuccessfully attacked Israel. PEACE EFFORTS PRIOR TO OSLO ACCORDS Throughout this time, as wars were waged on one side, peace talks were going on the other. For the most part, and up to today, all of those failed. After the war of 1973, there were new efforts to bring peace to the region. United States sensed that the mood is right for peace and President Jimmy Carter invited Egyptian President Anwar Sadat and Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin for peace talks at Camp David in 1978. At the end of 12 days of talks Sadat and Begin agreed on two accords, one that was called A Framework for Peace in the Middle East, and the other called A framework for the Peace Treaty between Egypt and Israel. The first was weak as Palestinians did not participate in negotiations, the second resulted in Egypt's recognition of Israel as a sovereign state, first such example in the Arab world. The second accord from Camp David was expanded on during Madrid Conference in 1991, co-sponsored by the US and the ailing Soviet Union. Palestinians again were not appropriately represented and the main goal of the conference was to push other Arab countries to openly negotiate with Israel. OSLO ACCORDS Following Madrid, there was a growing notion that the solution of the Middle East problem needs to be found between Israel and Palestinians, represented by PLO, something all the previous talks were lacking. Israelis and Palestinians secretly met in Oslo, Norway, therefore bringing a new component to peace efforts in Palestine. This was the first time Israel and PLO mutually recognized each other. On September 13, 1993 representatives of the State of Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) signed the "Declaration of Principles On Interim Self-Government Arrangements", a document also known as the "Oslo Accords". They were signed at a Washington ceremony hosted by US President Bill Clinton, attended by Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat and Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin.(Palestine Facts) The ceremony ended with a handshake between Arafat and Rabin, symbolizing the hope that the decade's long conflict could be resolved satisfactorily for both sides. The Oslo accords call for transfer of power and responsibilities to the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza in a manner that they have control over their own affairs in those areas. The issues of Jerusalem, Israeli settlements, refugees and borders were excluded from the interim arrangement. State of Israel was to be solely responsible for foreign affairs, defense and borders. Especially sensitive issue was Jerusalem which, according to Yitzhak Rabin's speech after the signing, is the ancient and eternal capital of the Jewish people." An undivided Jerusalem under Israeli sovereignty, with religious freedom for all, is and remains a fundamental Israeli position."(Palestine Facts) Also, during the interim period Israel was supposed to control border crossings to Egypt and Jordan, guarantee security of all citizens in the West Bank and Gaza, and secure freedom of movement on roads. The Declaration of Principles set up a four phase process. Phase one was to include Gaza Strip and Jericho and calls for withdrawal of Israeli forces from those areas. The details of this phase were, subsequently, negotiated in Cairo in 1994. In the phase two, Palestinians were supposed to take over education and culture, health, social welfare, taxation and tourism immediately after the implementation of the Gaza-Jericho agreement. Third phase calls for election of a Palestinian Council, bilateral economic cooperation and institution of Palestinian police. Finally, DOP in the phase four talks about the permanent status and, ironically, sets up a deadline for talks about it to start no later than the beginning of the third year of the interim period, or May 1996. (Jewish Virtual Library) Those negotiations were scheduled to include the issues of refugees, Jerusalem, settlements, security, borders, relations and cooperation with neighbors. Ironically, seventeen and a half years after, the talks are still not done. Oslo Accords, as many previous peace talks, failed and Israelis and Palestinians are still in a tug-of-war that occasionally escalates claiming new lives and displacing more and more people. OSLO ACCORDS; ANOTHER FAILED EFFORT Israeli writer Amos Oz brilliantly summed up the achievements of Oslo Accords by saying: "I maintain that Oslo was not given even a day's grace. Immediately, even before the ink was dry, the one side planned jihad and the brainwashing for jihad, while the other planned settlements. Therefore, I don't think Oslo failed, because Oslo was never tried." (Oz, in Haaretz 2003) And while his words ring true, it is undeniable that Accords had many positive outcomes. With Oslo, both sides came much closer to accepting each other. Israel got his peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan as a result of it. Majority of Israelis learned to recognize the necessity of an independent Palestinian state. On the other hand, Palestinians publicly accepted the right of Israel to exist. Why, then, there is still no peace in the Middle East? The reasons for Oslo Accords' failure are complex and are a consequence of underlying social and political realities. To say that those cannot be easily discovered would be an understatement. Right wing politicians and Zionist scholars on the Israeli side claim that Palestinian leaders never really wanted peace. For them the final Palestinian goal is the destruction of Israel. Simultaneously, the accusations from the other side include Israeli settlement expansion in the Palestinian territory, aggressive military checkpoints and closures of roads. Others, more neutral observers see a problem in technicalities of the Accord. The agreement was too vague, leaders on both sides failed to lead to peace, public was not enough involved in the process. It is obvious, then, that documents produced at Oslo talks were unsatisfactory and its implementation even worse. Ami Iseroff in an article titled The Peace Process is Dead, Long Live the Peace Process, contends that "the identities of each side have been shaped by the conflict, and the national goals and values of each side, as presently defined, are incompatible with peace."(Mideast Web) The claim here is that Oslo failed because it was in a conflict with national goals of both sides, and, therefore, the goals need to be changed if the peace process was to have any remote hope of success. The mentality of describing peace as a victory over the other side needs to be erased. Interestingly enough, that kind of mentality seems to reside in the heads of political leaders more than in the heads of common people. In 1993, The Guardian published results of a Gallup poll, conducted on a sample of 1,000 Israeli citizens. While, politicians were reluctant to accept the Oslo Accords and called it a betrayal and a sell-out, 65% of Israeli people polled said they approved of the peace accord, with only a small minority being against it vehemently.(The Guardian) On the Palestinian side, the reactions were similar. Hardliners like Hamas and Islamic Jihad scorched the accord claiming that the deal does not have the promise, let alone the guarantee of an independent Palestinian state. The Arab world did not like it either. In those circumstances, the failure of the accord was just a matter of when. As the implementation of the accord began, it was obvious that both sides will not be easily budged. Israel wanted to take a slow path, while Palestinians were anxious to get rid of Israeli occupation as soon as possible. Still, progress was made, slowly, but still made. In September 1995, so called Oslo II was signed in Washington with the participation of same leaders- Clinton, Arafat, Rabin and, additionally Egypt's Hosni Mubarak and King Hussein of Jordan. (Reut Institute) Not long after Rabin was assassinated and that moment sealed the faith of the Accords. In May 1996, following the results of Israeli elections, new Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu came into power and as a staunch opponent of the Oslo Accord denounced the policies of his predecessor. He claimed, repeatedly, that the Accord is a violation of the historic right of the Jewish people to the Land of Israel and a deadly danger to their security. Not surprisingly, Netanyahu did everything possible to freeze, stall and bring down the Accord. He, even brags in a video taken secretly that he destroyed the Oslo Accords. (YouTube) While he succeeded in his efforts, that, also, offered an answer to the big question at hand- why did the Oslo peace process fail? It broke down because neither side wanted it. Israelis, especially Likud Party, viewed accords as a sell-out. Palestinians, especially Hamas, contributed the violence that offered no place for peace. THE ROLE OF UNITED STATES United States seemingly played a prominent role in the peace talks over Middle East ever since Camp David 1978. After all, America facilitated Oslo Accords in 1993 and Oslo II in 1995, both under President Clinton. By doing that, United States publicly showed interest in resolving the Middle East conflicts, all while maintaining the role of a major superpower that is almost obliged to get involved and solve the issue at hand. However, America played another, underlying and more subtle part in bringing out Oslo Accords. Robert Malley and Hussein Agha in their book "Camp David, the Tragedy of Errors "express their belief that Bill Clinton, while brokering the peace, "consistently sided with Israelis, leading Yasser Arafat to suspect that there was a conspiracy against him."(New York Review of Books) This claim, not surprisingly, is believable. Jews in America are influential, both politically and economically and that influence is practiced, especially when it comes to issues as important as Middle East peace. Ian Lustick from Institute for Palestinian Studies writes that right wing Zionist Organization of America managed to "convince a substantial number of senators and representatives in the U.S. Congress (foremost among them Benjamin Gilman, chair of the House International Relations Committee) to define setbacks in the peace process as a measure of Palestinian (not Israeli) compliance with the terms of Oslo."(Lustick 64) Lustick asserts that Palestinian compliance or noncompliance determine the reduction, delay or elimination of American financial, diplomatic and political support for the Palestinian Authority, pushing America closer to Israel and compromising its neutrality. In that regard, it is important to say that Palestinians often times does not help the situation. Jonathan Rynhold from The Begin-Sadat Centre for Strategic Studies in Ramat Gan, Israel exemplifies that by claiming that “the PLO’s diplomatic and financial position was weakened when Arafat supported Saddam Hussein in the Gulf War in 1991, thereby alienating the U.S.” (Rynhold,2008) In continuation of his article “The Failure of the Oslo Process: Inherently Flawed or Flawed Implementation”, Rynhold takes an interesting and, certainly, persuading position. He believes that the U.S. has a vital interest in conflict management, in this case in maintaining stability in the region and preventing the regional war. On the other hand, conflict resolution is, obviously, in American interest, but it is not as vital. What Rynhold is trying to say is that, as long as the conflict does not escalate into regional war it is bearable for Americans. (Rynhold 2008). Jeremy Pressman in an article titled “Can the US Bring Peace to the Middle East” from 2002 blames the U.S. for not doing enough to enlist Arab support prior to Oslo talks. Washington ideas during the talks looked a lot like Israeli ideas , only repackaged, and Palestinians perceived them as such then, and perceive them as such now. In the article, Pressman lists six ways in which the U.S., wielding immense diplomatic power, could and should help the Middle East peace talks. According to him, America can offer visions and pathways out of violence, apply pressure and sticks and punishments to the belligerent side, offer incentives to supporters and build regional and international support. Unfortunately, says Pressman, for the most part Americans were hesitant to take risks, sticks given were for Palestinians only and international support was not built. (Pressman 2002) Many critics of the United States involvement in Middle East peace talks see the problem mainly as not enough involvement. Shibley Telhami and Lawrence Velte wrote in 1997 that “ since 1993 the US has confined itself to acting largely as a facilitator of bilateral Palestinian-Israeli negotiations and as a catalyst for mobilizing international economic support for emerging agreements.” The authors, however, do not stop there. They explore the connection between American Middle East engagement and the general situation in the Gulf. Generally, they say, the opinion is that there is just a minimal link between the US position in the Gulf and in Arab-Israeli conflict. But, many Arabs believe that there is a clear link, that Washington is manipulating the crisis in the Middle East for troop build-up and ultimate takeover of control in the entire Gulf. This way of thinking, claim Telhami and Velte, is perpetuated by Washington who shows minimal regard for Arab public opinion, all the while taking very seriously the opinions coming out of Israel, all of which is based on the notion that Israel is a democracy and, therefore, opinions there are, somehow, worth more. Telhami&Velte 1997) SUMMARY The PLO and Israel, for the most part, were able to negotiate the Oslo accord without the help of a third party. However, writes Avi Shlaim in a book titled International Relations in the Middle East, the imbalance in power between two sides (Israel being far more powerful) makes it really hard to implement the accord. America's role in the process was to manage it and correct that imbalance. Instead, United States added more weight on the Israeli side making a difficult task impossible. America, and only America, could and still can push Israel into acting as dictated in Oslo Accords. Thus far, America failed to accomplish that, and as a result, Israeli forces are still in the occupied territories and the peace process is stalled yet again. Works Cited Karsh, Ephraim. The Arab-Israeli conflict: The Palestine War 1948. Colchester: Osprey Publishing, 2002. ^ Two Hundred and Seventh Plenary Meeting. The United Nations. 11 May 1949. Accessed 9 Nov 2010. Reynolds, Paul. "History of failed peace talks." BBC. 2007. Accessed 8 Nov 2010. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6666393.stm "What were the details of the Oslo Accords?" Palestine Facts. Accessed 8 Nov 2010. http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_1991to_now_oslo_accords.php "Agreement with the Palestinians." Jewish Virtual Library. Accessed 7 Nov 2010. http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Peace/treatytoc.html Oz, Amos. "Reality Bites." The Haaretz (10 Jan 2003): Accessed 7 Nov 2010. http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jthml?ItemNo=250053 Iseroff, Ami. "The Peace Process is Dead, Long Live the Peace Process." Mideast Web. 2003. Accessed 8 Nov 2010 http://www.mideastweb.org/oslofailed.htm The Guardian. 16 Sep 1993. "Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement for the West Bank and Gaza Strip" The Reut Institute. 2004. Accessed 8 Nov 2010 http://www.reut-institute.org/Publication.aspx?PublicationId=565 "Netanyahu Brags About How Easy It Is To Manipulate The United States." You Tube. 2001. Accessed 7 Nov 2010 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GQTUNHwFA80&feature=related Malley, Robert and Agha, Hussein. Camp David: The Tragedy of Errors. New York: New York Review of Books, 2001. Lustick, Ian. "The Oslo Agreement as an Obstacle to Peace." Journal of Palestine Studies. Vol 27, No 1( Autumn 1997): page 64 Shlaim, Avi. International Relations of the Middle East. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005. Rynhold, Jonathan. “The Failure of the Oslo Process: Inherently Flawed of Flawed Implementation. The Begin-Sadat Centre for Strategic Studies.(2008) Telhami, Shibley and Velte, Lawrence. “The Arab-Israeli Peace Process: Assessing the Costs of Failure.(1997). www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil Pressman, Jeremy. “Can the US Bring Peace to the Middle East.(2002) http://web.mit.edu/ssp/seminars/wed_archives02fall/pressman.htm Read More