Viet Nam Human Rights
»
home
»
political-social
»
Prospects of a Isreali-Palestinian peace agreement in 2015
Prospects of a Isreali-Palestinian peace agreement in 2015
13/1/15
The Israeli–Palestinian conflict is the ongoing struggle between Israelis and Palestinians that began in the mid-20th
century. The conflict is wide-ranging, and the term is sometimes also used in
reference to the earlier sectarian conflict in Mandatory
Palestine, between the Jewish and the Arab population under British
rule. The Israeli–Palestinian conflict has formed the core part of the wider Arab–Israeli conflict. It has widely been
referred to as the world's "most intractable conflict".
The peace process
in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict
has taken shape over the years despite the ongoing violence which has prevailed
since the beginning of the conflict.[1]
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 the Egypt–Israel (1979) and Jordan–Israel (1994) treaties, whereas
some have not yet found a mutual basis to do so.
Despite a long-term peace process and
the general reconciliation of Israel
with Egypt and Jordan, Israelis
and Palestinians have failed to reach a final peace agreement. The remaining
key issues are: mutual recognition, borders, security, water rights, control of
Jerusalem,
Israeli settlements,[10]
Palestinian freedom of movement,
and resolving Palestinian claims of a right of return for their refugees.
The violence of the conflict, in a region rich in sites of historic, cultural
and religious interest worldwide, has been the object of numerous international
conferences dealing with historic rights, security issues and human rights, and
has been a factor hampering tourism in and general access to areas that are
hotly contested.
Many attempts have been made to broker
a two-state solution, involving the creation of
an independent Palestinian state
alongside the State of Israel (after Israel's
establishment in 1948). In 2007, the majority of both Israelis and
Palestinians, according to a number of polls, preferred the two-state solution
over any other solution as a means of resolving the conflict.[13]
Moreover, a majority of Jews
see the Palestinians' demand for an independent state as just, and thinks Israel can agree
to the establishment of such a state.[14]
The majority of Palestinians and Israelis in the West Bank
and Gaza Strip
have expressed a preference for a two-state solution.[15][16][unreliable source?]
Mutual distrust and significant disagreements are deep over basic issues, as is
the reciprocal scepticism about the other side's commitment to upholding
obligations in an eventual agreement.[17]
Within Israeli and Palestinian society,
the conflict generates a wide variety of views and opinions.
This highlights the deep divisions which exist not only between Israelis and
Palestinians, but also within each society. A hallmark of the conflict has been
the level of violence witnessed
for virtually its entire duration. Fighting has been conducted by regular
armies, paramilitary groups, terror cells, and individuals. Casualties have not been restricted to the
military, with a large number of fatalities in civilian population on both
sides. There are prominent international actors involved in the conflict.
The two parties engaged in direct
negotiation are the Israeli government, currently led by Benjamin Netanyahu, and the Palestine Liberation Organization
(PLO), currently headed by Mahmoud Abbas. The official negotiations are
mediated by an international contingent known as the Quartet on the Middle East (the Quartet) represented by a special envoy, that consists of the United States, Russia, the European Union, and the
United Nations. The Arab League is another important actor, which
has proposed an alternative peace plan. Egypt, a
founding member of the Arab League, has historically been a key participant.
Since 2006, the Palestinian side has
been fractured by conflict between the two major factions: Fatah, the traditionally
dominant party, and its later electoral challenger, Hamas. After Hamas's
electoral victory in 2006, the Quartet (United
States, Russia,
United Nations, and European Union) conditioned future foreign assistance to
the Palestinian Authority (PA) on the future government's commitment to
non-violence, recognition of the State of Israel, and acceptance of previous
agreements. Hamas rejected these demands,[18]
which resulted in the Quartet's suspension of its foreign assistance program,
and the imposition of economic
sanctions by the Israelis. A year later, following Hamas's seizure of power in the Gaza Strip in June 2007,
the territory officially recognized as the State of Palestine (former Palestinian National Authority
– the Palestinian interim governing body) was split between Fatah in the West
Bank, and Hamas in the Gaza Strip. The division of governance between
the parties had effectively resulted in the collapse of bipartisan governance
of the Palestinian National Authority
(PA). However, in 2014, a Palestinian Unity Government,
composed of both Fatah and Hamas, was formed. The latest round of peace
negotiations began in July 2013 and was suspended in 2014.
We have highlighted the reasons why the
road towards peace, or at least a settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian
conflict, seems to be reversible only at a high cost. In conflict resolution
and peace-building, however, perceptions of the "other side" are
often no less important than "facts," especially in a situation where
contacts and interaction are unavoidable. The question is, whether the peace
process can bring a stable peace. Peace can be properly called
"stable" (which is not always a synonym of "just") only if
the actors involved have no interest in choosing any other feasible (or
perceived as such) strategy. Nevertheless, violent conflict is actually
impossible if it becomes unthinkable, i.e., when violence is outside the realm,
as among the countries belonging to the European Union. The reason lies not
only in decision making procedures or in ideal affinities, but also in the
interdependencies between societies, i.e., in the processes of integration
between interacting democratic societies. This means that the existence of
independent civil societies plays a decisive role in conflict resolution. In our
context, an important role is thus played by the relations between Israeli and
Palestinian civil societies.
A seemingly possible way out of this
conflict could be zero interaction. A strategy of deconnection between Israelis
and Palestinians does not, however, look feasible. First, the presence of a
growing Palestinian minority in the state of Israel, would be a permanent stake
for the future Palestinian or Jordan/Palestinian state. Further, no normal
economic life in the area is thinkable if it is obstructed by reciprocal
boycotts. A strategy of deconnection by not employing Palestinian workers has
been pursued by the center-left government of Israel, but this is primarily a
political strategy which is not economically or socially viable.
The question is how, after a final
peace settlement, can the underlying conflicts be dealt with, both inside Israel (between
Arab/Palestinian and Jewish Israeli citizens) and between Israelis and
Palestinians, and generally Arabs. While there is a flux of Israeli tourists in
Egypt, and Israelis with a
second passport can visit Jordan,
very few Egyptians visited Israel
or even East Jerusalem and the West Bank.
Moreover, Israeli interest in Egypt
or Jordan
seems to be purely touristic. If some form of inter-societal détente is to be
achieved, this lack of mutual interest has to be overcome. The reasons seem to
be different on the two sides, and are not the same for everyone in each
"camp."
The Palestinians do not perceive their
relationship with Israelis as a relationship between equals.25
Since the Israeli is at the same time the occupying soldier and - more rarely -
the peace activist, (s)he will be usually perceived as the occupant. The creation
of a Palestinian state and a period of separation could be basic steps in order
to overcome this Palestinian perception. As far as Israelis are concerned, it
appears that there is not - so far - a wide interest in knowing the Palestinian
reality directly. That reality would confront each individual with the major
problems concerning Israel's
and Israelis' identity, and their relations with their neighbors.
Nevertheless, two more optimistic
points can be made in conclusion. First, the hierarchic relations in Israeli
society itself between groups originating from different areas seem to be
weakening. The intra-societal integration could make relations with other
groups easier. Second, and more important, the relations developed during the
intifada between Israeli peace groups and parts of the Palestinian elite could
develop into a permanent process of reciprocal understanding spreading beyond
these small but important groups.
The future of a Palestinian/Israeli agreement in 2015
lies partially in the hands of the radical memberships of Hamas and the
Palestinian people themselves. The masses have the power to demand peace with Israel from the Hamas led government and Hamas
must decide how to proceed with Israel.
Although more violent means have been somewhat effective in recent years in the
Palestinian perspective, the desired end has yet to be achieved. Thus, one
could intuitively argue that a greater concentration on more peaceful means to
bring about a resolution to the conflict would be in the Palestinian’s best
interest. Furthermore, self-empowerment by the Palestinian people could bring
about pressure on the Hamas-led government from within, which could make peace
with Israel
more likely. Perhaps such a cultural change is occurring that will allow a resolution
to this age-old conflict to be found./.
Popular Posts
-
Religion is a part of the spiritual life in society, this phenomenon of the superstructure has been strongly changed with economic - social... -
Vietnam has just done well for the second cycle of Universal Periodical Review (UPR) in Geneva, Switzerland. So, what’s the UPR? an... -
Thai people in Shutdown Bangkok protests Not until this crisis, we have realized the ne... -
Representatives from foreign countries congratulate Viet Nam on its election to the Human Rights Council for the first time on November ... -
A street flowers vendor in Hanoi Another new spring has come to Vietnam, bring... -
If nothing changes, there will be a preferential credit program with hundreds of thousands billion of capital for agriculture and r... -
Recently, several anti-governmental individuals have established series of illegal groups and organizations in the name of civil soci... -
Radio Free Asia (RFA) is a private, nonprofit international broadcasting agency of the United States government that broadcasts and...
All comments [ 10 ]
Palestinians have held diverse views and perceptions of the peace process. A key starting point for understanding these views is an awareness of the differing objectives sought by advocates of the Palestinian cause.
The 1967 war is particularly important for today's conflict, as it left Israel in control of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, two territories home to large Palestinian populations.
Hope in the new year 2015, the world will witness peace between them.
The primary approach to solving the conflict today is a so-called "two-state solution" that would establish Palestine as an independent state in Gaza and most of the West Bank, leaving the rest of the land to Israel.
The Israel-Palestine conflict is not just about land. It’s a bitter religious war.
The violence of the second intifada and the political success of Hamas have convinced many Israelis that peace and negotiation are not possible and a two state system is not the answer.
This is what a religious war looks like, and we should stop kidding ourselves that this is not what has been happening in the Middle East.
A common theme throughout the peace process has been a feeling that the Palestinians give too little in their peace offers.
Religion was always a significant motivating force on both sides.
Most Israelis still want to believe they are fighting only for their security and have nothing against Muslims, while many Palestinians still want to blame the occupation for all violence. So sad, I don't see any solution or hope for peace.
Your comments