Peace Between The Palestinians And Israelis example essay topic

The Israeli-Arab conflict, or as it is now known as the Israeli - Palestine conflict has existed for over 50 years, beginning with the declaration of the State of Israel in 1948. Although its origins are religious it is now essentially a struggle over land, which is occupied by the Israelis. The 1993 Oslo Accord was the first attempt to resolve the conflict, yet it has not produced peace and is seen as being highly flawed, with numerous issues remaining unsolved and their being "gaping loopholes" on the side of Yasser Arafat and the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO). Yet, it was the first evidence of Israelis beginning to recognise the need for a Palestinian state and making concessions towards them.

Until 1948, the area now known as the State of Israel, the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, was known as Palestine. However, after the bad treatment of the Jews by the Nazis in World War II the modern political movement of Zionism gained more support. The core belief of Zionism is that all Jews constitute one nation and that the only solution to anti - Semitism is to concentrate as many Jews in Palestine / Israel and establish a state there. The Jewish believe they have claims to the Palestinian Land because of the biblical promise to Abraham and his descendants that Palestine was the historical site of the Jewish kingdom of Israel.

This led to the UN General Assembly voting to partition Palestine into two states in 1947 - one Jewish and one Arab (the religion of Palestinians). The Palestinian Arabs, however rejected this plan because they do not believe they should forfeit their land to compensate the Jews for the crimes Europe made against them in World War II and claimed the UN plan allotted too much territory to the Jews. On the day that Ben Gurion declared the State of Israel in 1948, fighting began between Arabs and Jews over the land in the War of Independence. The result of this war, was a victory for Israel with even more Palestinian territories being conquered. The state of Israel encompassed over 77% of territory, with Jordan occupying East Jerusalem and the West Bank.

Egypt took control of the Gaza strip. The Palestine Arab state envisioned by the UN partition plan was never established. There were many consequences of this first war between Israel and the Palestinians. One of these was that 700,000 Palestinian Arabs became refugees. There is argument as to how these people became refugees, as the Palestinians claim most were expelled as some sort of ethnic cleansing by the Jewish Israelis. However, the Israelis refute this and claim the refugees fled on orders from Arab political and military leaders.

The problem of where the refugees should live is still an issue to be dealt with fifty years later. The next major war between the Arabs and Israelis was The Six Day Way, 1967, and resulted in the Israelis gaining even more land. The Soviet Union misinformed the Syrian government that Israeli forces were massing in North Israel to attack Syria, so responding to a Syrian request for assistance Egyptian troops entered the Sinai Peninsula bordering Israel. After defeating the Egyptian, Syrian and Jordanian armies, Israel captured the West Bank from Jordan, the Gaza strip and the Sinai Peninsula from Egypt, and the Golan Heights from Syria.

The land Israel claimed in this war is the land that the Palestinians are now wanting back to form a Palestinian state. The Israelis have since established a military administration to govern the Palestinian residents of the West Bank and Gaza strip. As a result, in these areas the Palestinians have been denied many basic political rights and their nationalism has been criminal ised. There are several issues which need to be dealt with if peace between the Palestinians and Israelis is to be reached, and most are by products of the War of Independence and The Six Day War.

For example, the Palestinians now want a return to pre-1967 borders to create their own State, the issue of who will control Jerusalem is claimed by both, and also the control of transport and the roads. However, one of the most important is the Israeli settlements in the Gaza strip and the West Bank. Since occupying the West Bank and the Gaza strip Israel has built hundreds of settlements and permitted hundreds and thousands or its own citizens to move there, even though this constitutes a breach of international law (4th Geneva Convention). These settlements are connected to each other and to Israel by bypass roads, which the Palestinians aren't allowed to use. All the Israeli settlements are, therefore, linked up but the Palestinian villages and cities are isolated. This isolation prevents the chance of any viable Palestinian state being created and therefore, was one of the main issues when "The Oslo Accords" was drawn up.

The Oslo Accords, 1993 was the first attempt at peace whereby there was mutual recognition between Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO), with the PLO being the organisation established in 1967, after the Six Day War by Yasser Arafat to represent the Palestinians. Before this, the Israelis had refused to negotiate with the PLO, claiming it was a terrorist organisation, and rejected the establishment of a Palestinian state, insisting the Palestinians should be incorporated into existing Arab states. The reasons both parties began to negotiate were because there was support from the USA to seek peace, and the Palestinians went from insisting on the complete "liberation" of all Palestine, which would have meant the destruction of Israel to being willing to seek a two state diplomatic solution with Israel. The Oslo Accord was meant to deal with all the issues which needed to be resolved, for example, the borders, Israeli settlements in West Bank and Gaza strip, transport and the control of Jerusalem. However, there is debate as to how many of these issues were included. To look at who the Accords advantaged more - Israel or Palestine - we must look at what each states aims were, and how much each sacrificed.

And also, what the result of the Oslo Accords at the end of the 5 yr interim period was. The aim of the Palestinian's was primarily the creation of a Palestinian state, which would mean the withdrawal of Israelis from the settlements in the West Bank and the Gaza strip. The aim of the Israelis was to ensure peace for their people, i.e. agreeing with the Palestinians they would end anti-Israeli violence in the occupied territories. The Oslo Accords established that Israel would withdraw from the Gaza strip and Jericho, with additional withdrawals from further unspecified areas in the West Bank during a five year interim period. Israel would gradually withdraw its troops and administrative structures from the major Palestinian population until an independent state was established. However, although the Israel army would withdraw to barracks it would still have access and jurisdiction on the roads in the occupied territories, and the Palestinian Police Force (PPF) would not have jurisdiction over the settlements.

In return for this withdrawal the Palestinians would establish a Palestinian Authority (PA) and Afar at promised to end anti-Israel violence in the occupied territories. All these sacrifices made by each side seem to reach the aims of both parties. However, if you look at the agreements carefully and what actually happened in the following years, the advantages do seem to fall on one particular side. To see this, you must look at what the Oslo Accords didn't discuss.

There were several key issues which needed to be resolved which were set aside, such as, the extent of territories to be conceded by Israel, the future of the Israeli settlements and settlers, water rights (Israel controlled 80% of the water, and some was in Palestinian land), the resolution of the refugee problem and the status of Jerusalem. These were the most difficult issues and there was nothing in writing which would prevent Israel expanding settlements. It was just understood that it would be inconsistent with the spirit of Oslo. It is a common view that Israel, with the unconditional political, economic and military assistance it had from America, held all the cards. The Palestinians had to make all the first compromises whilst the Israelis had 5 yrs to make theirs. This is seen as a major flaw of the Oslo Accords.

Arafat, leader of the PLO, was severely criticised for the loopholes in the process. However, it is thought that he had other personal gains to be made from the formation of the Palestinian Authority, and this was the reason he accepted the agreement. At the end of the day, the accords went no where near to realising a viable, independent state of Palestine. What happened in the following years of the Oslo Accords highlights the flaws of the Accords even more. In 1995, Rabin (Prime Minister of Israel) highlighted his detailed plans for a permanent settlement with the Palestinians.

He said there would be no return to pre-1967 borders, that Jerusalem would remain under exclusive Israeli sovereignty and that the Palestinians would end up with less than 50% of West Bank and the Gaza strip, cut off from each other surrounded by Israeli settlers. As the Palestinians had not discussed these issues in any such detail in the Oslo Accords, there was nothing to stop the Israelis doing this, especially with the support of the Americans. Even though, throughout this period the Palestinians kept to their side and did their best to end terrorism in the Occupied Territories. The assassination of Rabin led to Israelis policy becoming even tougher.

Peres (new Prime Minister) stepped up the process of settlement expansion and continued to oppose Palestinian Statehood. In fact the Oslo Accords "land for peace" failed to lead to the evacuation of a single settlement. In fact, the number of settlements and settlers increased. In 1993 the population of settlements in the West Bank was 247,000. By the beginning of 2002, it was 380,000.

A rise of 50%. The positioning of the settlements further isolated the Palestinian towns so that the creation of a Palestinian state is practically impossible. On the plus side for the Palestinians, some powers have been transferred to the Palestinian Authority in dozens of disconnected, enclaves of towns and villages, so the Israelis have made some concessions there, but the control of roads, control of 80% of the water supply and control of remaining areas is still the Israelis. The road connections between the Gaza strip and the West Bank, promised in the Oslo accords have still not been built. It would be obvious to say, therefore, that the Oslo Accords favoured the Israelis. It is true that it was a highly flawed process, which was open to abuse.

However, the Israelis did sacrifice some of their land and power to the Palestinian Authority and to the Palestinians, even though it wasn't enough to create a viable state of Palestine. They also guaranteed security for both against external threats. If they had stuck to the plans of the 5 yr interim period the advantages would have been majoritavely on the side of the PLO, who are seen by the Israelis as Terrorists. It was maybe a bit na " ive of the PLO to agree to an agreement which left so much space for abuse from both sides. Obviously the Israelis have the Upper Hand, they have their own state and are economically better off than Palestine. The Oslo Accords was the first coming together of Israel and the PLO to attempt to resolve their differences.

Although this did not occur and has still not occurred, the Accords, at the time were greeted with widespread support from both Palestinians and Israelis. In the long term, Israel ended up going back on its word which leads people to think they gained the most from the agreement. But, they did withdraw from the Gaza strip and Jericho area, which is an advantage for the Palestinians. Short term, the Palestinians, although they were powerless to stop any abuse to the Accords as shown later on, could have gained more in advantages than Israel, because it was Israel that was giving up land.

Even though, the Palestinians claim the land to be theirs anyway. In the long term neither countries gained any advantage, because violence now is worse than ever, from the frustration of the Palestinians at their inability to gain their own state and the Israelis reply to Palestinian terrorism. Both countries are willing to negotiate, but none willing to compromise and if this doesn't occur their will never be any advantages for either Palestine or the Israel. Israel have the Upper Hand politically, economically and are more powerful than Palestine, which is one of the reasons it is so hard for these two states to find peace. Even though it was Arab hatred and resistance to the creation of a State of Israel in the first place which started this conflict, Israel are the most powerful state in the conflict, and therefore have more advantages than Palestine, so therefore from looking at what actually happened in the Oslo Accords and the abuse of it by Israel, the Accords did favour Israel more.

It led to increases in settlements in Occupied Territories, and a decrease at the time in terrorism against their people. Some say they deceived the Palestinians, but nothing they did was against the Accords, because it wasn't written down in the first place and Yasser Arafat and the PLO shouldn't have agreed to an agreement which let this happen..