Mid East Exam 4

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 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 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 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 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.