Upload
pamela-miller
View
216
Download
0
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.