1993 Israeli Palestinian Peace Agreement

The 1990s were a decade of intense negotiations on the peace process between Israel and its Arab neighbours. In Madrid and Oslo, as well as in Shepherdstown and Camp David, two American presidents have tried to bring peace to the Middle East. There are many issues to be resolved before achieving a lasting peace, including: Howard Dicus: At the end of the year, logistical problems delayed the handover of power; but most Palestinians remained peaceful and felt that this time there might be a happy ending. Foreign Affairs Minister Warren Christopher said it should have been better. In 1970, U.S. Secretary of State William P. Rogers proposed the Rogers Plan, which provides for a 90-day ceasefire, a military status quo zone on either side of the Suez Canal, and an effort to reach an agreement under UN Resolution 242. Israel rejected the plan on 10 December 1969, calling it “an attempt to appease [the Arabs] at Israel`s expense.” The Soviets dismissed them as “unilateral” and “pro-Israel.” President Nasser opposed it because it was a separate agreement with Israel, even though Egypt was reclaiming the whole of Sinai. [33] [34] Howard Dicus: Israeli Foreign Minister Shimon Peres was one of the Jewish and Arab leaders who came to Washington in 1993 to shake hands with an agreement to empower Palestinians living in countries under Israeli control. In 1993, Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization signed the Declaration of Principles for a Peaceful Settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict.

Although this is an important step towards peace, it came for the Palestinians with hidden costs. Negotiations on the remaining sustainable status would begin no later than May 1996 (two years after the signing of the agreement between Gaza and Jericho); Oslo I, Article V) and before May 1999 (end of a five-year transitional period). A peace treaty would end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Despite the long history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, many people are working on peaceful solutions that respect the rights of people on both sides. The two-state solution is the consensus position among the majority of Israelis. [11] However, the violence of the second intifada and the political success of Hamas (a group engaged in the destruction of Israel) [12] have convinced many Israelis that peace and negotiation are not possible and that a two-state system is not the answer. [5] Hard-liners believe that Israel should annex the entire Palestinian territory, or at least all at least the Gaza Strip. [5] The Israelis view the peace process as an obstacle and almost impossible because of Palestinian terrorism and do not trust the Palestinian leadership to maintain control. [5] In fact, Pedahzur goes so far as to say that suicidal terrorism has been a success where peace negotiations have failed in favouring the withdrawal of Israelis from West Bank cities. [13] A common theme during the peace process was the feeling that the Palestinians were not giving enough in their offers of peace. Among the Palestinians, supporters of the Oslo Accords argued that it was a compromise that could lead to peace.

Fatah, the PLO`s largest faction at the time, supported Oslo. But other political parties outside the PLO, such as Hamas and Islamic Jihad, rejected the agreements and warned that a two-state solution would betray the right of Palestinian refugees to return to the lands they were abducted during Nakba 1948. Thus, the prospect of the end of the Arab-Israeli conflict at the end of 2000 was more distant than eight years earlier. The Clinton administration had helped facilitate Israeli-Jordanian peace and laid the groundwork for Palestinian autonomy.

Comments are closed.