Mid East Exam 2

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 Israel’s 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 20th, 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 worked. There were many key issues left out of the agreement because they 1

were topics that were of great importance and it was determined that they would be discussed at a later date. Some of these issues included: refugees, borders, settlements, and Jerusalem. These were to be brought up again in about 5 years, once it was confirmed that the agreements were on course and working out well for both countries. One of the major points of the agreement was that Israel would withdraw all troops from Gaza and the West Bank and would leave those regions to Palestinian authority to govern. However, “Arafat had failed to obtain other specific concessions concerning a timetable for Israel’s withdrawal from occupied terroritories.” (Carter, Palestine Peace Not Apartheid, 135) Also the topic of elections agreements was covered, there was established rules for running the elections and campaigns. Israel also had to agree to withdraw all of their military forces from Gaza and Jericho. The Palestinians would not be allowed to have a military but would however get to have their own police force; this would help allow for safe passage. This would help advance the idea of peace in the region by making sure that neither side felt threatened by the other. Yet the key component they did not realize was that in Israel’s history “security” has been their major concern, and most of their money went to this cause. Therefore telling them to withdraw their troops from Gaza and the West Bank would be a harder task than imagined since many of the troops in those regions were patrolling over the settlements which were constructed for security reasons, even though it seems that the military that patrols the settlements is their to protect the land they are expanding on rather than as a protective border to protect Israel (class notes, 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

2

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. “Israel’s 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 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 3

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 Israel’s 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 Arafat’s 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 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 IsraeliPalestinian 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 4

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.

4. What is the role of religious beliefs, both historically and today, in the conflict and how are they linked to violence?

It is difficult to assess the role that Muslims play in the Jewish faith because Islam did not start until after 610 AD which was when the Prophet Mohammad received his first revelation from God, far after the start of Judaism. Since the Quran was comprised after the Torah, there is mention of Jews in the Islamic holy text. Jews are respected as people of the book, however the message God gave them was corrupted and changed over time. While there are fundamental differences between the Judaism and Islam, such as the acceptance of Jesus as true prophet or the idea of hell, there are many similarities that people seem to forget. One could say that Jews and Muslims share many beliefs that play a role in their daily lives, such as not consuming pork and eating kosher or halal. The first Jews and Christians were from the land that is now Israel or Palestine, so one can see why this region is so significant. Israel and Palestine is “Holy Land for three monotheistic religions, of which two – Judaism and Christianity – had their origin here, whilst the third, Islam, regards Jerusalem as next in holiness to Mecca and Medina.” (Buber, Arab-Jewish Unity, 13). Muslims accept that Jerusalem is the site where the prophet Jesus ascended into heaven. Before the Muslims began going to Mecca for the Hajj pilgrimage, which is one of the five pillars of Islam they would go Jerusalem because it was the site of the first Qibla. The Dome of the Rock was 5

actually constructed due to the order of a Muslim, Abd al-Malik, in order to compete with the several churches in Jerusalem during the late 7th century. Jerusalem is referred to several times in both the Old Testament and the New Testament bible, which explains why both Jews and Christians find it sacred. Christians find this land to be holy because it was where Jesus was taken as a child and it was where he did most of his preaching and healing. Before his death Jesus had a Passover meal with his disciples, which later became known as the last supper, where he shared his vision that he would be betrayed by one of these men. Soon after Jesus was crucified in outskirts of Jerusalem. Today we mostly hear Jerusalem being linked to the Jewish faith; this is of course because it has become a major reason for the Zionist movement. Many feel that the words Jerusalem and Zion are interchangeable in the Old Testament. Jewish temples usually face the direction of Jerusalem and many Jews pray in this direction wherever they may be just as Muslims used to at one point because they began facing the Kaaba in Mecca. Jews have considered Jerusalem the center of the Jewish faith for over 3,000 years since David’s conquest of the land, when it used to be the capital of Judea. The power to run Jerusalem has continued since then. While it may be easy to see how each of the religions has a part of their history in the land that is now Palestine or Israel, it is more difficult to understand how religion has impacted the current situation today. While the conflict is over land, it is over holy land which makes everything more complicated. Each group feels they rightfully belong to the land. While in recent years we have seen even more violence break out from both sides, we must keep in mind that this is not preached by any religion. It is only religious extremists that misinterpret holy 6

books and turn them into a means for warfare. The media also portrays these terrorists to be some kind of representation of a religion as a whole, which we all know to be false. For example the term Jihad has been mentioned many times in connection with the violence in the Middle East. What is Jihad? The Holy Koran uses the term Jihad many times to describe different struggles, whether it be a struggle to stand up for one’s faith against other forces or the struggle in our souls to remain pure. The Prophet Mohammad has been quoted discussing these two types of Jihad in the Hadith. One if the Jihad we face within ourselves, the struggle we have to choose right over wrong. The other Jihad has been portrayed by Western media as an explanation for the violence we see throughout the Middle East, this definition is the fight to defend Islam against those that wish to destroy it. The Koran mentions that those that fight to defend their religion will receive greater rewards than those that sit at home, yet this can be interpreted in many ways. For one, defending Islam does not necessarily mean using violence which is what extremists usually turn to. Many Muslims believe this verse in the Koran applies to many situations, for example if one were to say something wrong about Islam then it is a Muslim’s duty to correct them and defend their religion; in some ways this is seen as a form of Jihad, a struggle to stand up for one’s faith. One cannot blame the media for not portraying the most accurate definition of Jihad, because suicide bombers and terrorists refer to this word themselves as a reason for their crimes. Yet anybody that research Islam would know that the Koran preaches against violence, and the Prophet Mohammad emphasized that Muslims should strive for peace. In chapter 5 verse 32 of the Holy Koran it states “Anyone who has killed another person it is as if he has killed the whole of mankind and anyone who saves one life, it is as if he has saved the whole of mankind”. The Koran also forbids 7

suicide, saying that for those who commit it there will be no space for them in paradise. Yet why is it that we never hear these quotes rather than the ones about martyrs and the rewards that suicide bombers get for their sacrifice in the name of Allah? It is because extremists have formed a new form of Islam, one that has steered away from the path their holy book has paved. Another role religion plays in this conflict is the difference between the “so called” secular government in Israel as opposed to the authority in Palestine, which is always clearly intertwined with religion. In Israel “religious law, or fiqh, was updated to the “needs of modern times and deployed to “civilize” the provinces.” (Levine, Overthrowing Geography,10) Yet one could argue that this is just another way to make the Palestinian people seem more backward, even though it is clear religion plays a role in the policies and decisions of both Israel and Palestine. It seems there are “two Israels, one encompasses the ancient culture and moral values of the Jewish people, defined by the Hebrew Scriptures” (Carter, Palestine Peace Not Apartheid, 112) while the other is a strictly secular government. Yet many Israeli’s argue that the country needs to be more secular. One party in Knesset called “Balad” was in support of a more secular Israel and it was banned from participating in the election by the central election committee, however later this ban was overruled by the Supreme Court. All public holidays in Israel are closely linked to Judaism. Yet if all this is true than why is Israel considered to still be a secular state? One could say that this is a very clever way for Israel to present themselves are more modern and responsible than the Palestinians. While Palestine continues to be linked to Islam, Israel makes an effort to separate their image from that of the Jewish faith in order to make this conflict over land seem like it has nothing to do with their religion but rather with politics. Making themselves only seem like a political entity and portraying the 8

Palestinians as religious extremists is what often give Israel more credibility in the international community. This is why we learned in class that in a way Hamas was a self-fulfilled prophecy for Israel, because how could they possibly negotiate with violent religious extremists? (class notes, 11/04/09) Religion will continue to play a role in this conflict over this land, like it has been from the beginning of its existence. Yet it is important to understand exactly how religion relates to all of this instead of relying on the definition of Islam from violent Palestinian terrorists or “secular” Israeli Politicians; religion has a role in this conflict because the land is linked to all Abrahamic faiths not because the violence in the region is linked to beliefs of a faith.

5. What is the Palestinian authority? When was it established, how has it functioned and why has it failed to produce any measure of independence for Palestinians?

It is difficult to discuss Palestinian authority because it is currently split in two. Fatah governs over the west bank while Hamas is in Gaza. While the land is not very large to begin with, the two areas are governed completely different. Hamas and Fatah are not very fond of each other, this of course being because of their different opinions in how to rule over the land. Hamas being a more religious right wing Islamic party while Fatah is socialist and secular. The two groups have different origins and are run differently, but they both together represent the Palestinian authority today. The Palestinian Liberation Organization or the PLO is the long lasting official authority in Palestine. It was founded in 1964 as an attempt to represent the Palestinian people. In 1974 it received observer status at the United Nations. 9

Later in 1993 Israel accepted the PLO as being the authority of the Palestinians. Yasser Arafat became the Chairman of the PLO soon after its start in 1969. In 1982 after the Israelis invaded Lebanon, many of the PLO members were forced out of the country. “For the next decade, the members of the organization were dispersed in many Arab nations, while they continued to build diplomatic ties throughout the world and again emerged as the sole remaining political symbol for Palestine.” (Carter, Palestine Peace Not Apartheid, 104) The PLO was comprised of 18 members that were elected into their positions. Their goal was to defend the Palestinians struggle for independence and they started with the hope to remain a secular organization. The PLO is made up of 10 different factions; of these Fatah is the largest. Fatah is a faction of the PLO that is considered to be left wing nationalist party. They originally stated their goal as being to “complete the liberation of Palestine, and eradication of Zionist economic, political, military, and cultural existence” however Arafat was said to have wanted the last part of that remark removed from their charter. Yasser Arafat was one of the founders of Fatah, which became a member of the PLO in 1967. He continued to head Fatah and be the chairman of the PLO up until his death in 2004. After his death there was an election in which “The Carter Center was asked to observe the process, with the National Democratic Institute as a partner.” (Carter, Palestine Peace Not Apartheid, 169) In the end Mahmoud Abbas was elected as the leader of the Fatah faction of the PLO. Hamas was founded in 1987 by the Palestinian side of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood; this was during the first intifada, this “sustained, independent, and forceful action of young Palestinians surprised both the Israelis and the PLO.”(Carter, Palestine Peace Not Apartheid, 105) They have been 10

linked to a history of violence and have been referred to as a terrorist organization by much of the International community. A first chain of attacks on Israel took place in 1993, and Hamas has since been accused of dozens of other attacks. Yet to the surprise of many, Hamas won 2/3 of the seats in the Palestinian parliament in 2006. This meant that Hamas now had more seats than Fatah, but after much conflict between the two groups Fatah regained power over the West Bank while Hamas took control of Gaza. While Hamas has mentioned that their goal is to create an Islamic state over the land that is currently Israel, however Hamas Prime Minister, Ismail Haniyeh, stated in June 2009 that they would “have not problem with a sovereign Palestinian state over al lands within the 1967 borders” (Carter, Palestine Peace Not Apartheid, 203). Since Hamas has come into rule in Gaza, there has been no motivation to start any type of negotiations from Israel’s side because they refuse to deal with a violent terrorist group. This would mean that the creation of Hamas has actually made it easier for Israel to refuse to negotiate. There are many reasons as to why the Palestinian people have suffered as a result of their unstable government. Perhaps the biggest is the image that the Palestinian authority holds in the international community. Throughout the years one thing has been certain about the Palestinian government, it’s instability. While the region has conflicts within itself over who should be the voice of the Palestinians, the rest of the world’s credibility of a future Palestinian state is dropping. While Israel seems to come prepared to any negotiation or meeting, Palestine can barely manage to decide who their leader is. This view only contributes to the backward image that much of the international community already has about Palestine. Also while the instability within the Palestinian government exists, Israel does not have to be expected to negotiate some type 11

of deal with them. Another problem with the constant struggle over power in Palestine is that while these parties are fighting each other it becomes too difficult for them to fight for the rights of the Palestinian people. This instability has also discouraged many qualified candidates to participate in the Palestinians parliament and try to resolve its issues. Many of the members of the PLO dropped out during times of conflict between Hamas and Fatah, but many of them rejoined later. The Palestinian people have become frustrated after not being heard for so long, even with democratic elections their votes do not seem to have much effect. Many feel this is how Hamas won so many seats in the 2006 election in the first, because the Palestinian people were ready to try something different after years of not getting any results from Fatah. Once Hamas still was not allowed to rule the West Bank, despite the votes of the people moral feel a bit from people of all parties. What is the point of an election, if someone overrules the decision? At this point the Palestinian people have began to lose faith in their own government, making it even harder for them to gain their independence. In order for the Palestinian people to have their voices heard I feel it is crucial that there be some kind of grass roots movements, much like those that formed during the first intifada. Without this type of organization to portray the ideas of the people we may never see stability with the Palestinian authority. Currently Mahmoud Abbas has cooperated in discussions with President Obama over the conflict with Israel, yet he has said from the beginning that he refuses to begin negotiating with Israel until construction of the settlements has come to an end. After many attempts at negotiating some type of solution to the Middle East conflict one thing is clear, that the Palestinian people are certainly at a disadvantage. This is due to the fact that their authority has not been stable from 12

the beginning of the PLO’s existence and they cannot compete with Israel’s extremely organized and stable government. This has been clear from experiences such as the Camp David talks with President Clinton. Until the Palestinian people unit and try to achieve a unified stable government their chances at peace and independence are put on hold. Of course it is difficult for the Palestinians alone to express their concerns and wishes, which is why it is also important that other Arab countries form some type of pact with the Palestinian people for this is another “possible form or independence for Palestine and as being in the interests of the Arab states themselves.” (Buber, Arab-Jewish Unity, 14) One of the major political powers in the Middle East is Saudi Arabia; it certainly has the means to assist the Palestinian authority in efforts to end the violence in the region. “The leaders of Saudi Arabia can be a crucial and beneficial force in the Middle East whenever their influence might make the difference in bringing peace and stability to the region as an alternative to war and continuing political turmoil.” (Carter, Palestine Peace Not Apartheid, 102)

6. Describe in detail your idea for a viable, practicable solution to the conflict.

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict has been a conflict that started with the distribution of land but today has turned into much more than just that. It has become a clash over religions, ethnicities, and power. Jews and Muslims have had a history of peace and tolerance, and I feel in the future these people will find their way back to this peaceful union. Even today signs of co-operation between the Palestinians and Israelis exists, “ In the cities there is a certain amount of 13

economic co-operation, but less than there used to be, and there would be much more under settled political conditions” (Buber, Arab-Jewish Unity, 11). This is why if I were to propose a solution for the conflict I would base it around a one state solution. People have been focusing on two state solutions for so long and yet no agreement has been reached. The more the world tries to think of a way to separate these two groups the more they start to view themselves as enemies and find it more impossible to coexist. The Israelis and Palestinians need to start realizing all the things they have in common rather than the differences that have surfaced since the existence of Israel. One may think it is impossible for these people to start getting along and share this land with all the deaths and destruction that has taken place in the past few decades, and this is why it is unrealistic to think that this plan would work out perfectly from the start. However, if we were to set in a basis for a future union between Palestine and Israel then in the future the idea of a peaceful state will be attainable. There are many components that must work together in order to this solution to work. One part of my plan that I think would be crucial would be to have both countries accept some fault for the deaths that have occurred on both sides. Israel refuses to admit they have fought the Palestinians with disproportionate for force even though the international court of law has accused them of this. In order for both countries to begin negotiating, Israel would have to admit that building the settlements was wrong. There would have to be some group that ran these negotiations or moderated and I personally believe that this cannot be comprised of any American politicians. This reason for this is that America has tried to head these negotiations in the past and nothing has come of it, so we need a new start. Also it is clear that America is a bit biased in this case, they do after all fund most of is not all of Israel’s army. If we were to put European Union 14

leaders or United Nations leaders in charge of running these negotiations then I think things would run more smoothly and there would be more of a neutral perspective to finding a solution. The most important issue has always been borders, but of course one of the advantages of a one-state solution would be that we would not have to worry about this problem as much. I believe it would be impossible to run Palestine and Israel as one entity with laws and budgets that apply for all the people. This is why my solution would propose that the land be divided up into separate states or provinces, and much of the budgeting would be determined on a state level much like in the United States. This would mean there would have to be politicians on both a state level and a federal level. Meaning there would be many more politicians in charge of making decisions than there are now. I would make sure each state has a board of politicians comprised of both Palestinians and Israelis so that the power is split up evenly throughout the country. There would also be an “appointment of Jews and Arabs in equal numbers to the Executive Council of Government.” (Buber, Arab-Jewish Unity, 31) It is also important to get women involved in politics and have them run for these positions or even appoint them for certain positions. With women having a voice in their communities it will allow more stability and less struggle for power. There are already several activist groups comprised of women that are of both backgrounds and strive for peace, so finding women that are willing to make decisions for their communities should not be too difficult. After all, the first intifada had a lot of support from female groups and women played a large role in this uprising but were not really given much credit. The settlements would be their own states and people would be encouraged to mix in these regions in order to erase the reputation they have now. In order to encourage blending the government could 15

offer cheap housing or less taxes to people that wish to move there, this is similar to what Israel currently does to get people to live on the settlements even though the risk of attack is higher. Therefore, “some of these (states) will be mainly Jewish, some mainly Arab, and some mixed.” (Buber, Arab-Jewish Unity, 34) The Palestinian refugees would have the right to return to the lands they used to live on, however many of them have started new lives in neighboring countries so if they choose to stay where they are they could be compensated for the homes they lost. Jerusalem could be a sort of religious capital where people of all ethnicities and religions are free to visit, and it would not have any political significance. The moderators of this plan would have to assure the Palestinian people that the Israeli army would no longer exist and all weapons previously owned by them would be used for the safety and protection of all Israeli and Palestinian people. Each province or state would have a budget for their own police force but there would only be one military. Yet even with united military force there is still the fear that violence will continue, but in order for the pattern of violence to end in this region we would need to find a new way to educate the youth. Education is the best way to create change. Schools would be run by state funding, but the curriculum would have to be the same across the country in order to prevent any sort of bias teaching. I think it is important to make sure that schools are strictly secular. If people wish to educate their children on religion then they can do so in their homes or places of worship. It is crucial for both Israeli and Palestinian children to start to be educated together in the same schools in order to assure a future of peaceful coexistence. At first this may be difficult because Israeli children are taught in Hebrew, whereas Palestinian children are taught in Arabic. If primary schools began to incorporate language courses then children could 16

learn to be fluent in both languages. This would make it easier to merge the students in the later grades. Universities in the future could offer courses in both languages. In order for this solution to work properly there would have to be a lot of supervision at first, but I feel we have to be optimistic and believe that these two countries will eventually have to think of some way to compromise because they are running out of time. As one time peace was possibly between these two groups, “Jews and Arabs stuck together because the interests of their life required it” (Buber, Towards Union in Palestine, 19) one day they will come this realization again. Just as they have in the past eventually The international community will have to step in at some point, especially with Israeli war crimes becoming more of an issue with the international court of justice. In order to assure that this plan will not end up being a failed attempt at peace much like the attempts in the past there would have to be goals made to reach at certain time periods. The first decade would be highly supervised and if by the end of then things have worked out as planned then the United Nation moderators could more loosely follow the progress of the country. Funding for this would have to come from the international community, however if America were to continue funding this country as they do with Israel today then that should help pay for much of the guidance needed for this solution.

17