Mid East Exam 4

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

  • 8/14/2019 Mid East Exam 4

    1/5

    Ghazal Sawez

    2. Describe the main agreements that together constituted the Oslo process. List

    each one and explain its main components, how it, at least on paper, advanced

    the process forward, what its weaknesses were, and to what extent it was

    implemented on the ground by each side.

    The Oslo Accords was meant to be a large step in a positive direction for

    the conflict between Israel and Palestine, however it failed to live up to its

    expectations. Yet it was still a landmark occasion, seeing how it was the first time

    that the government of Israel and the Palestinian Liberation Organization met

    and agreed on a deal. It was also the first time that the Israeli authority

    acknowledged the PLO as the official Palestinian Authority. This was supposed

    to be a basis for which other negotiations could follow in the future. The was

    much discussion before leaders from both sides came to an agreement, in fact

    Israels leaders Rabin or Peres could not be involved before the Palestinians

    had provided clarification on a number of issues. (Qurie, From Oslo to

    Jerusalem, 85) Both parties agreed upon the terms of the plan on August 20 th,

    1993. About a month later an official ceremony was held in order to mark the

    signing of the accords, Yasser Arafat signed in representation of Palestine, while

    the Israeli Prime Minister at the time Yitzhak Rabin signed on behalf of Israel;

    American Bill Clinton was present for the signings. There were many reasons as

    to why Oslo failed, most notably that people failed to notice the history between

    these two countries (class notes, 10/14/09). However, the intentions of the plan

    were good and would have allowed a chance for peace in this region if it had

  • 8/14/2019 Mid East Exam 4

    2/5

  • 8/14/2019 Mid East Exam 4

    3/5

    10/28/2009). Despite what they agreed to, Israel refused to let Palestinians pass

    through certain areas after these meetings. Also, while Israel refrained from

    building new settlements for a period of time after the accords they still expanded

    their current settlements. This of course discredited this part of the agreement.

    A large part of the agreements was the idea of Economic cooperation; this

    was an effort to make sure that the Palestinians would get the assistance they

    needed. This was suppose to create jobs for Palestinians, since the Israeli

    economy has been much more powerful from the start. There would also be a

    fund to assist the Palestinian economy. Israels plan was that Arafat and the

    PLO would assume responsibility for local administration, free to receive and

    distribute (or perhaps retain a portion of) the international financial support that

    would be available to the Palestinians. (Carter, Palestine Peace Not Apartheid,

    136) The Oslo Accords called for them for cooperate in for water, electricity,

    finance, energy, communications, labor relation, trade, media, and environmental

    protection. This would advance the peace process forward because it would

    allow both countries to be somewhat stable economically so that they would not

    have to rely as much on other countries. However, the reason why this did not

    worked on as planned on the ground was because there was not as much

    incentive for Israel to participate and hold up its end of the deal. The Israeli

    economy was not nearly suffering like the Palestinian economy. Also they felt no

    need to offer jobs and promote economic growth for the Palestinians. Again this

    mistake could have been prevented if they have looked more into the history

    between the two regions. There were clear reasons as to why this agreement

    never worked out, after the meetings in Oslo Israel closed their borders and

  • 8/14/2019 Mid East Exam 4

    4/5

    prevented Palestinians from coming to claim the jobs they were promised. (class

    notes, 10/28/2009)

    The last part of the plan was an effort to pave the way for future

    negotiation. It called for both sides to assist in multilateral peace efforts to ensure

    the economic and social welfare of the region, including the West Bank and

    Gaza. There was much debate over the acceptance of all these condition; both

    parties were split on the decision. On Israels side the left wing party was in

    support of it while the right wing was against it, in the end they voted in favor of

    accepting the agreement but the number of votes was very close. On the

    Palestinians side, Fatah was in favor of the agreement seeing how they are the

    more secular party and were willing to negotiate in peace talks. However at the

    time Hamas, an Islamic militant group that opposed recognition of Israel,

    perpetrated acts of violence, and was increasingly competitive with Arafats

    secular Fatah Party (Carter, Palestine Peace Not Apartheid, 144) was strictly

    against the deal because they were only interested in a forming a Palestinian

    state over the entire region, this has of course changed sine 1993 and they are

    now willing to accept a Palestinian state with the 1967 borders.

    There are many people that criticize the Oslo Accords today for not

    accomplishing anything and for actually making matters worse for many

    Palestinians. Ariel Sharon declared the Oslo Agreement to be national suicide

    and stated, Everybody has to move, run and grab as many hilltops as they can

    to enlarge the settlements because everything we take now will stay our (Carter,

    Palestine Pease Not Apartheid, 147). Many blame the Oslo Accords for the

    outbreak of the second intifada. However, it is easy to look back at the plan and

  • 8/14/2019 Mid East Exam 4

    5/5

    criticize it now because everybody knows it did not help advance the peace

    process whatsoever. More people should have criticized the plan when it was

    created; while many of the people agreeing on the terms were skeptical they still

    went forward with the deal. Nobody assessed the history behind the Israeli-

    Palestinian conflict to understand why Oslo could never work. Some say it was

    doomed from the start due to the lack of realistic goals. Yet the important thing to

    gain from the Oslo Accords is to make sure all sides of future plans are revised

    and thought over before being presented to both sides in order to ensure the

    interests of everyone involved.