Figure 1.-- |
|
The Oslo Peace Process seem to offer the possibility of peace. The official name of the Oslo accords was the "Declaration of Principles On Interim Self-Government Arrangements". It was the foundation of the Oslo Process--peace negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians between 1993 and 2000. They were signed at a Washington ceremony hosted by President Bill Clinton (September 13, 1993). Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat and Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin famously shook hands, seemingly ending decades as sworn enemies. The foundation of the process was the idea that Israel would trade land for peace. The Oslo Process envisaged that the Israelis would proceed to transfer portions of the occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip to the control of the Palestinian Authority, a quasi-state organization. The Palestinian Authority would in exchange guarantee Israel's security by ending Palestinian Organization (PLO) terrorism and supressing armed Palestinian groups that failed to comply. After progress was made in these areas, Israel and the PA would negotiate a final agreement involving a mutual recognition of each other's territorial claims. The "land for peace" transfers were seen as building mutual trust and confidence. Finally the two sides would negotiations the "final status" issues that were left unresolved at Oslo. These included some of the most difficult issues: Palestinian statehood, the status of Jerusalem, Jewish settlements, and the right of return. Although the Oslo Accords were signed with great optimism, there was considerable opposition to the agreement, especially among Palestinian groups.
The Oslo Peace Process seem to offer the possibility of peace. The official name of the Oslo accords was the "Declaration of Principles On Interim Self-Government Arrangements". It was the foundation of the Oslo Process--peace negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians between 1993 and 2000. They were signed at a Washington ceremony hosted by President Bill Clinton (September 13, 1993). Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat and Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin famously shook hands, seemingly ending decades as sworn enemies.
The foundation of the process was the idea that Israel would trade land for peace. The Oslo Process envisaged that the Israelis would proceed to transfer portions of the occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip to the control of the Palestinian Authority, a quasi-state organization. The Palestinian Authority would in exchange guarantee Israel's security by ending Palestinian Organization (PLO) terrorism and supressing armed Palestinian groups that failed to comply. After progress was made in these areas, Israel and the PA would negotiate a final agreement involving a mutual recognition of each other's territorial claims. The "land for peace" transfers were seen as building mutual trust and confidence. Finally the two sides would negotiations the "final status" issues that were left unresolved at Oslo. These included some of the most difficult issues: Palestinian statehood, the status of Jerusalem, Jewish settlements, and the right of return.
The Palestinian Authority have 12 years to turn both Gaza and the West Bank ingto a productive Palestinian state. They could have built hospitals, roads, and schools to create jobs and empty the refugee camps. They did very little of this. In fact the economy steadily deteriorated. Economic conditions were much better snd jobs more avaliable under Isreali occupation.
Although the Oslo Accords were signed with great optimism, there was considerable opposition to the agreement. Many Arabs states continued to resist accomodation with Israel. And thee was opposition among the Palestinians. Hamas and elements in Fatah were opposed to any recognition to Idsrael.
Considerable discussion has swirled around PLO leader Yasser Arafat. From the beginning, there was considerable skepticism about Arafat's commitment to renouncing terrorism and truly accepting the Isreali state. There is also the question of Arafat's assessment of hether he could survive if he ever signed an agreement with Israel.
The Oslo Peace process involves a commitment to peace on both the Isreali and Palestinian side. The fighting since 1947 has created a great deal of mistrust and out right hatred on both sides. Thus the question of sincerity and commiment to peace arrives. Both sides say that the other side is insincere and unwilling to make peace. We do not have any way of evaluating what is in the heart of the leaders involved. Any assessment here will tend to be determined by the individuals overall attitude toward the conflict. We believe there is one way of assessing the commitment to peace of the two sides and that is what are they telling their children. This comes very close to telling us what is in the heart of the leaders involved. Here we can look at school books and other sources targeted at children. These are actual verifiable texts. And they exist from both Isreal and Palestine as well as from the wider Arab and Muslim world. For the Palestinians the Koran comes into play. So we also need to look at what the Koran says about Jews. Perhaps there are also pertinent Biblical passages.
One author points out that while the Oslo Process has floundered that a very different agreement has been extrodinarily successful--the Helsinki Agreement (1975). Natan Sharansky argues that the Helsinki Agreement played a major role in the collapse of the Soviet Union because of the emphasis on human rights. He argues that Oslo failed because the sme concern with human rights was excluded from the Oslo Process. He defines humans rights as intrinsically associated with democratic political rights. Sharansky insists that only democracies advance human rights. The argument has been made that the peace process could not afford democracy because a strong man like rafat was needed to control Palestinian groups opposed to the Oslo Process. The error of that position is now evident. Sharansky argues that dictators like Arafat require an external enemy to legitamize their dictatorship. Without such an enemy, the population would begin to make demand and expect results. Sharansky contends that peace with the Palestinians is not possible until the Palestinians develop a democratic political culture that permits and open discussion of the issues. [Sharansky and Dermer]
Palestinians have acused the Isrealis of Apartheid. The reference is to the odious Apartheid established by white Afrikaaners in South Africa. South African Allan Boesak said at a Palestine Human Rights Campaign meeting, "Oppression in Palestine is so very like oppression in my homeland." These charges have been echoed by ledt wing activists and even former U.S. President Jimmy Carter. Carter published a book with the incendiary title, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid. Despite the title, however, Carter does not really persure the case for Israel as an Apartheid state. Apartheid was a political system based on race. Voting and citzenship rights were based on race. The system involved Afrikaaner seizure of large areas of black owned land and control of most of the country's productive farm land. There was also an effort to create Bantustans, meaning to move blacks into small politically controlled reservations in areas of poor land of limited value. Apartheid also involved Afrikaaner control of the court system. So any assessment of the charge that Isreali is persuing Apartheid envolves looking at the basic elements of the system. An assessment of Apartheid would need to assess both Palestinians in Israel as well as in the West Bank and Gaza. The ironic aspect of these charges is that the debate commonly ignores the openly Apartheid policies persued by Arab countries toward Palesinian refugees. Arab policies vary from country to countrty, but most Arab countries have confined Palestinian refugees camps, limiting employment opportunities, and denying citzenship rights that is very rarely mentioned by liberally oriented media like the BBC or the major American networks. These are not policies that Israel has persued with its Palestinian citizens.
Carter, Jimmy. Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid.
Sharansky, Natan and Ron Dermer. The Case for Democracy: The Power of Democracy to Overcome Tyranny and Freedom (2004).
Navigate the Boys' Historical Clothing Web Site:
[Return to Main Israel-Palestine page]
[Introduction]
[Activities]
[Biographies]
[Chronology]
[Clothing styles]
[Countries]
[Bibliographies]
[Contributions]
[FAQs]
[Glossaries]
[Images]
[Links]
[Registration]
[Tools]
[Boys' Clothing Home]