Israel-Plo__Negotiations_on_an_Agreement_to_Establish_a_Palestinian_Independent_State.

Negotiation Strategy Final Paper Israel-PLO: negotiations on an agreement to establish a Palestinian Independent state. The violence of the first Intifada broke out in 1987, which has been represented by a series of Palestinian attacks organized against the Israeli army and against the civil. In the beginning of the 1990’s, in Israel a new era began for Jews and Arabs. After years of humiliation and frustration for the Arabs, the exhaustion of continuous attacks and the endless violence towards the Jewish population, secret talks occurred between Israel and the Palestinian Liberation Organization. In 1993, the Oslo process started as a series of secret negotiations after the Madrid Peace Conference. Before the Madrid summit, which did not led to concrete agreements, all negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Liberation Organisation were meetings that were taking place in secret. At the end of the Madrid conference, an idea of hope emerged for the all the participants. In 1991, the Israeli minister Yitzhak Shamir declared, “(w)ith an open heart, we call on the Arab leaders to take the courageous step and respond to our outstretched hand in peace”. The First Oslo Accord was also known as the Declaration of Principles (DOP) which began, by a mutual recognition of their legitimate and political rights. The main point of the Oslo Accords was to establish a just and lasting peace. The objective of this declaration was the gradual transfer of power from Israel to the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. This process was to be done in four main stages; first was the complete withdrawal of Israelis from the West Bank and Gaza Strip, the second was the transfer of responsibility to the hands of the Palestinians, the Palestinian authority would have the responsibility for the administration of the territory. (Watson, 2000, 41) The third stage was the implementation of the Interim Agreement and the final stage was the permanent status agreement, which represented crucial issues for the Palestinians including the most important matters such as refugees, borders, Jerusalem, prisoners and settlements. (Watson, 2000, 44) The Interim Agreement consisted of: first it instituted the structure of the Palestinian Council, second the redeployment of Israeli Forces in some areas; area A would be under full Palestinian control (over 3.4% of the West bank and Gaza strip), the area B would be a joint Israeli-Palestinian control (27%) and the Area C, a full Israeli control over 70% of the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Third, Israel had to make some arrangements for safe passage of persons between the Gaza Strip and the West Bank in order for the Palestinians to create their own authority and economy. Indeed, in this agreement, the Israelis recognize the Palestinian Interim Self-Government Authority. During the Oslo accords this realization that the majority of both sides wanted to reach territorial compromise and negotiations was a big step within the Arab-Israeli conflict. (Rekhess, 2003, 3) The Intifada created many fears on both sides. The Israelis’ interests in the Oslo accords were to stop the violence of the Palestinians towards the IDF and the Israeli citizens. The Intifada took the Israelis by surprise and they did not know how to deal with such a popular way of fighting. The IDF was not ready or prepared to fight against “guerilla types of fighting”. Indeed, the fact that the Israelis were powerless in front of the Intifada led to the belief that an eventual negotiation face to face would be useful in order to stop the violence. During the Oslo accords, both sides sat down and understood that violence would not lead anywhere. The fact that the Israelis withdrew from territories and that in some areas there was a full control (or a common Israeli-Palestinian control) showed the will of both sides, Israelis and Palestinians. UN resolution 242 and 338 stated that peace and negotiation should take place from now one and the withdrawal of the Israelis from the territory gave an idea of hope. For the Palestinians, the Oslo process was the way to get an independent authority and autonomy. However, Israelis’ alternative to it was the “front loading” and “back loading” that they made. The “front loading” can be represented by the security and the cessation of violence whereas the “back loading” represent the issue of the refugees and settlement were nothing had been done. Indeed, one of the criticisms of the Oslo process was the postponing of these “permanent status” issues of five years with no due date, which frustrated and humiliated again the Palestinians. Israel gets the security and the halt of violence, however the Palestinians are victims of an imbalance. Even if for the first time the Palestinian Authority has been created and their autonomy is from now on in their hands, Jerusalem, the refugees, the settlements, security arrangements, borders have been crucial issues since the establishment of the state of Israel in 1948. The interests of the Palestinians have been achieved with Israel recognizing the Palestinian Liberation Organization as the Palestinian Self-Government Authority. The withdrawal of Israeli forces, the economic cooperation, the transfer of powers from Israelis to Palestinians, and the arrival of the Palestinian police was a real accomplishment for the Palestinians. The two sides agreed on cooperating on economic issues such as trade and commerce. The Oslo accords are not only based on political agreements but also on economical issues, which were in the interest on the both sides, but mainly for the Palestinians. The establishment of their own police force was a big achievement for the Palestinians and Israel engaged itself to carry the responsibility of any external danger or threat. Hebron was considered as an important success for the Palestinians, considering the fact that Palestinians have been claiming the West Bank including the city of Hebron since 1967. The Hebron protocol signed in January 1997 shared the city in two areas; Israelis withdrew from 80% of the city. The Palestinians did gain a significant achievement and the Israelis as well, knowing the fact that Jewish settlers remained in the city, which was an important concern. (Watson, 2000, 48) The Oslo Accords have led the Palestinians and Israelis to sit down and talk face to face. Mutual recognition of the other side was a crucial step within the Arab-Israeli conflict as was the establishment of the Palestinian Authority, which was elected by the Palestinian population. Economic agreements have been beneficent for both sides, including electricity and water (the canal Project), which remain one of the most important matter in Israel as well as trade and commerce. The road to peace has been taken by both sides, however even if big achievements have been made, the most paralyzed matter during the process as been the postponing of the main issues with no specific due dates Frustration and humiliation is “back on the scene” for the Palestinians. Bibliography Watson, R Geoffrey, The Oslo Accords, Oxford University Press, 2000 Rekhess, E, The Arabs of Israel After Oslo: Localization of the National Struggle, 2003