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 Israeli-

Palestinian 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