Peace process in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict

The UN Partition Plan

The Peace process in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has taken shape over the years, despite the ongoing violence in the Middle East. Since the 1970s there has been a parallel effort made to find terms upon which peace can be agreed to in both the Arab-Israeli conflict and in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Some countries have signed peace treaties, such as Egypt-Israel (1979), and Jordan-Israel (1994), whereas some have not yet found a mutual basis to do so.

Views of the peace process

Palestinian views of the peace process

See Palestinian views of the peace process

Israeli views of the peace process

See Israeli views of the peace process

Other views of the peace process

There are many divergent views on the peace process held by U.S. officials, citizens and lobbying groups. The U.S. government has contributed significant levels of financial and military support to Israel for decades. U.S. aid to Israel exceeds the amount of foreign aid that the U.S. provides to any other country. In 2002, the US began providing limited financial assistance to the Palestinian Authority (about $100 million annually), and has encouraged European nations to contribute as well, leading to a total contribution of more than one billion dollars.

The U.S. has veto power in the U.N. Security Council and is able to block resolutions it opposes, and it has frequently vetoed resolutions critical of Israel's actions, while criticising other nations for similar actions.
* "The United States will always stand with Israel, always remember that only a strong Israel can make peace." -- U.S. President Bill Clinton, December 13, 1998.
* "Israel is entitled to the land they have. . . it should not be a part of the peace process." -- U.S. Senator James Inhofe, February, 2002.
* "Israel has got responsibilities. Israel must deal with the settlements. Israel must make sure there is a contiguous territory that the Palestinians can call home." -- U.S. President George W. Bush, June 3, 2003.
* "Palestinian leaders must bring an end to the violence against Israelis, and find a way, with the help of others, to rein in militant groups. Israel must be prepared to meet its obligations, as outlined in the Bush administration's road map, and in the Mitchell plan, with respect to settlements." -- 2004 U.S. Presidential candidate John Kerry, October 17, 2003.
* "My friends, there is no Palestinian-Israeli conflict. There is only the global war on terrorism." -- U.S. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, August 30, 2004

All recent U.S. Presidents have maintained a policy that Israel must give up some of the land that it conquered in the 1967 war in order to achieve peace; that the Palestinians must actively prevent terrorism; that Israel has an unconditional right to exist; and that the Palestinians should eventually have their own democratic state.

Obstacles arising on both sides

Repeated obstacles to peace seem to be as follows:
*Strong feelings on both sides
*Status of Jerusalem
*Israeli security concerns regarding the territories of the West Bank and Gaza Strip.
*Arab concerns over Israeli settlements and land.
*Palestinian refugee issues

Attempts to make peace

Madrid and Oslo (1991-93)

Main articles: Madrid Conference of 1991 and Oslo Accords.

In 1991, just after the First Gulf War, a breakthrough occurred when US president George H.W. Bush called a conference in Madrid, Spain, dubbed the Madrid Peace Conference of 1991. Talks continued in Washington, DC, but with few results, and were replaced by a series of clandestine meetings between Israeli and Palestinian negotiators hosted by Norway. These meetings produced the 1993 Oslo Peace Accords between Palestinians and Israel, signed by PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat and Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin with US President Bill Clinton on the White House lawn. Rabin, Arafat and Israeli Foreign Minister Shimon Peres were awarded the 1994 Nobel Peace Prize for their efforts.

Camp David 2000 Summit

After the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin in 1995, the peace process slowed to a grinding halt. The Palestinians living in the territories did not see their living conditions improve. Additionally the Israeli settlements, seen by the Palestinians as one of the largest obstacles to peace, were not beginning to be dismantled. Instead their population almost doubled in the West Bank. Later sporadic suicide bombing attacks from Palestinian militant groups and the subsequent retaliatory actions from the Israeli military made conditions for peace negotiations untenable.

In 2000, US President Bill Clinton convened a peace summit between Palestinian President Yasser Arafat and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak. The Israeli prime minister, Ehud Barak reportedly offered the Palestinian leader approximately 95% of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, as well as Palestinian sovereignty over East Jerusalem, but Prime Minister Barak proposed that 69 Jewish settlements (which comprise 85% of the West Bank's Jewish settlers) be ceded to Israel. He also proposed "temporary Israeli control" indefinitely over another 10% of the West Bank territory--an area including many more Jewish settlements. According to Palestinian sources, the remaining area would be under Palestinian control, yet certain areas would be broken up by Israeli bypass roads and checkpoints. Depending on how the security roads would be configured, these Israeli roads might impede free travel by Palestinians throughout their proposed nation and reduce the ability to absorb Palestinian refugees. President Arafat rejected this offer. President Clinton reportedly requested that President Arafat make a counter-offer, but he proposed none. No tenable solution was crafted which would satisfy both Israeli and Palestinian demands, even under intense U.S. pressure.

Later at the Taba summit (at Taba) in January 2001, the Israeli negotiation team presented a new map. The proposition removed the "temporarily Israeli controlled" areas, and the Palestinian side accepted this as a basis for further negotiation. However, Prime Minister Ehud Barak did not conduct further negotiations at that time; the talks ended without an agreement and the following month the right-wing Likud party candidate Ariel Sharon was elected as Israeli prime minister in February 2001.

Beirut summit

The Beirut summit took place in March 2002, and held to present plans to defuse the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Jordan's foreign minister said::The Arab initiative put forth at the Beirut Summit in March offers comprehensive peace in the region based on the internationally recognized formulation of "land for peace" -- a return to June 4, 1967, borders in exchange for normal relations and a collective peace treaty.

In response, Israeli Foreign Minister Shimon Peres welcomed it and said: "... the details of every peace plan must be discussed directly between Israel and the Palestinians, and to make this possible, the Palestinian Authority must put an end to terror, the horrifying expression of which we witnessed just last night in Netanya," [1]referring to Netanya suicide attack perpetrated on previous evening which the Beirut Summit has failed to address.

The "Road Map" for peace

In July 2002, the "quartet" of the United States, theEuropean Union, the United Nations, and Russia outlined theprinciples of a "road map" for peace, including an independentPalestinian state. The road map was released in April 2003 after the appointment of Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen) as the first-ever Palestinian Authority Prime Minister. Both the US and Israel called for a new Prime Minister position, as both refused to work with Arafat.

The plan called for independent actions by Israel and the Palestinian Authority, with disputed issues put off until a rapport can be established. #In the first step, the Palestinian authority must "undertake visible efforts on the ground to arrest, disrupt, and restrain individuals and groups conducting and planning violent attacks on Israelis anywhere" and a "rebuilt and refocused Palestinian Authority security apparatus" must "begin sustained, targeted, and effective operations aimed at confronting all those engaged in terror and dismantlement of terrorist capabilities and infrastructure". #Israel was required to dismantle settlements established after March 2001, freeze all settlement activity, remove its army from Palestinian areas occupied after September 28, 2000, end curfews and ease restrictions on movement of persons and goods.[2]

Neither party has yet fulfilled its obligations under this peace plan.

Israel has dismantled only minor post-March 2001 settlements and has actually expanded some settlements. The Israeli army still regularly invades and bombs Palestinian controlled areas in what it describes as actions to "combat terrorism". Though not part of the "road map" itself, critics claim Israel has further undermined the peace plan by building Israeli West Bank barrier between Israeli and Palestinian populated areas.

Palestinians have not made much progress in reducing violent actions of Palestinian against Israel and Israels. They state that this is because of disputes between resistance factions (e.g: then-prime-minister Abbas had stated that he could not act against Hamas without causing a civil war) and continued Israeli attacks. Initially, Hamas and Islamic Jihad unilaterally declared a 45 day temporary ceasefire ("hudna"), conditional on Israel ceasing its assassinations of Palestinian leaders and a mass release of thousands of Palestinians held in Israeli prisons without trial or charges. Israel rejected the proposal; see more at Hudna.

This violence which continues to this day, coupled with the lukewarm political support, has led many to conclude that this peace plan has failed. The Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon has all but declared it dead. The U.S., which gave lip-service to the plan, has failed to provide any meaningful support for the plan and has blocked efforts by the Europeans, Russians and the U.N. to revive it.

Alternative peace proposals

With the road map in difficulties, pressure has grown to find an alternative way forward. On December 7, 2003, Israeli Deputy Prime Minister Ehud Olmert proposed a unilateral withdrawal from large parts of the West Bank and Gaza strip, abandoning some Jewish settlements while annexing some territory. This was interpreted by many as a trial balloon on behalf of Ariel Sharon, who followed it up with a speech on December 18 giving the Palestinian Authority "a few months" to comply with the road map before Israel took "unilateral steps". The speech was strongly criticised by the United States government, which warned against pre-empting the road map's outcome, and by many on the Israeli right, who cite security concerns and the need for achieving reciprocal concessions in return for the withdrawal.

Another approach was taken by a team of negotiators led by former Israeli Justice Minister Yossi Beilin, one and former Palestinian Information Minister Yasser Abed Rabbo following two and a half years of secret negotiations. On December 1, the two parties signed an unofficial suggested plan for peace in Geneva (dubbed the Geneva Accord). In sharp contrast to the road map, it is not a plan for a temporary ceasefire but a comprehensive and detailed solution aiming at all the issues at stake, in particular, Jerusalem, the settlements and the refugee problem. It was met with bitter denunciation by the Israeli government and many Palestinians, with the Palestinian Authority staying non-committal, but it was warmly welcomed by many European governments and some significant elements of the Bush Administration including Secretary of State Colin Powell.

Yet another approach was proposed by a number of parties inside and outside Israel: a "binational solution" whereby Israel would formally annex the Palestinian territories but would make the Palestinian Arabs citizens in a unitary secular state. Championed by New York University professor Tony Judt, the suggestion aroused both interest and condemnation. It was not actually a new idea, dating back as far as the 1920s, but it was given extra prominence by the growing demographic issues raised by a rapidly expanding Arab population in Israel and the territories. Somewhat surprisingly, some Israeli settler groups supported it, seeing it as a way by which Israel could permanently legitimise its hold on the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Considering the huge political and demographic issues that it would raise, however, it seems a highly improbable solution to the problem.

List of peace proposals

See List of Middle East peace proposals.

Other peace projects

See Projects working for peace among Israelis and Palestinians.

Despite the long history of conflict between Israelis and Arabs, there are many people working on peaceful solutions that respect the rights of peoples on both sides.