Middle East Conflict: Issues Between Israel and the Palestinians
The situation in the Middle East represents one of the most important international conflicts since the end of the Second World War. The ongoing disputes related to the existence of a Jewish state at the expense of the Palestinian people has drawn the attention of the international community which has been trying for more than half a century to find a proper resolution to the wars that represent an everyday reality for both the Israelis and the Palestinians1. Along the history of the conflict there have been numerous attempts and plans that tried to offer feasible solutions and compromise plans that would cater for the needs for nationality, security, and economic prosperity of all the parties involved. However, to this day, the major issues that affect the region have remained unsolved, despite these efforts. The reason for the failure to implement a viable solution to the problem at hand is hard to ascertain. However, different plans such as the Clinton Parameters, Taba, and other plans proposed various alternatives to war which offered solutions with a limited degree of applicability nonetheless. The Clinton Parameters represented a set of ideas presented by the Clinton Administration in late 2000 soon after the realization
Nonetheless, the initiative was not successful. The historical context and especially the political transformations that marked the leadership of the parties involved however reduced the potential for peace. In this sense, "At Taba, Yasser Arafat hoped to lock the new Bush administration into the same set of proposals that had been put forth under Clinton, proposals that Arafat hoped would be a floor under any new negotiations with the Israelis. Also, the presence of the United States, as well as Russia and the European Union constitutes an incentive for both parties to engage in constructive negotiations. However, the interesting fact about the negotiations and the discussion that took place regarding this issue was not necessarily the game of percentages, but rather the willingness of the leaders to discuss such matters. In the issue of the sovereignty over Jerusalem, the parties accepted the right of the other side to exercise sovereignty in their respective sides of the city, with certain amendments though. Also, the issue of the land annexed by the Israeli state would be solved through land swap and creating safe passage lines2. There were other agreements reached in principle by the two sides such as the idea of transforming parts of Jerusalem into an open city, or the issues related to the Western Wall and the Wailing Wall. The Israelis in this sense demanded 6% of the West Bank, while the Palestinians offered a little more than 3 %. From this point of the discussion onwards, the issue of the territory was considered at this moment essential. At the same time, Barak was hoping for some breakthrough that would bolster his election chances in the few weeks remaining of his term as Prime Minister"7. This willingness was seen in the discussion of the next points, as the formal agreement reached on the issue of the land swap or the aspects of the number of corridors for safe passage5. The Palestinians, for the first time, made detailed counterproposals--in other words, counteroffers--showing which changes to the 1967 borders they would be willing to accept. Concerning the Gaza Strip, although there was a common understanding that the territory would remain Palestinian, the two sides failed to agree on the proper date for evacuation, the Palestinians viewing six months to be sufficient, while the Israelis disagreeing.
Common topics in this essay:
Davos Arafat,
West Bank,
Yasser Arafat,
Gaza Strip,
Summit Palestinians,
Israelis Palestinians1,
Wall Taba,
Israelis Palestinians,
World War,
European Union,
west bank,
clinton parameters,
peace process,
land swap,
yasser arafat,
israel palestinians,
issue land,
peace agreement,
viable solution,
issue territory,
|
Acceptance Essays
