Yasser Arafat Peace Agreement

„The Internal Logic of Israel`s Negotiations: Withdrawal Process, Not Peace Process“ Douglas Feith, a Middle East specialist in the Reagan administration, questions the logic of Oslo. „Israel cannot impose good faith on the Arab side, nor can it provide mature political leadership. We know with certainty that the „peace process“ means Israel`s withdrawal; we do not know for sure whether this will create peace or whether both sides really intend to do so. Clinton`s final agreement speech Just 13 days before leaving office, Clinton presented this overview of the peace process in detail on the new „parameters“ he had developed to bridge the deadlock at Camp David – parameters that became the basis of the Taba negotiations. Over time, the timetables set out in the agreement have not been met, Israel`s rede deployments have been slowed down and new agreements have been negotiated. Israeli critics of the deal claimed that „land for peace“ was in fact „land for nothing.“ Israeli forces are withdrawing from Gaza and Jericho, the first step in the peace process. Israel remains responsible for Israelis and settlements in these areas; Palestinians are now responsible for Palestinian law and order and internal security and will act to prevent terror against Israelis in areas they control. About 5,000 Palestinian prisoners who did not participate in the attacks on israelis will be released. Everything was a fake. How can we talk about peace when there are bombings and murders almost every day? The excuse is always that the Palestinians are the terrorists.

Likud, not to mention that they were — the majority of them, not all, but a large part of them — opposed to the Oslo Accords. Prime Minister Ehud Barak called on Clinton to convene the summit. Barak wanted to push for a permanent deal – skipping the interim transfers requested in the Wye deal – and for a two-state solution that would end the conflict. In the end, it was mostly a failure, with one exception: the Israeli-Jordanian peace treaty of October 26, 1994. Twenty-five years ago, the treaty was signed in Wadi Arava, on the border between the two countries, as President Bill Clinton testifies. It survived because it has strategic value for both countries and the United States. „The Oslo Peace Process through Three Lenses“ An assessment of how Oslo suffered serious setbacks a few years after it was signed. Based on his reviews of three books, the author explains how „confidence-building“ measures have been undermined by unilateral Israeli actions such as the expansion of Israeli settlements (the number of Jewish settlers has doubled since the beginning of the peace process in 1993) and by ongoing Palestinian terrorist attacks. The Trump administration remains on the sidelines as the UN envoy lobbies for peace in Gaza The goal of the Israeli-Palestinian negotiations was to establish a Palestinian interim autonomous authority, an elected council, for the Palestinian people in the West Bank and Gaza Strip for a transition period not exceeding five years, leading to a permanent settlement based on UN Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338.

is an integral part of the entire peace process. The agreements signed between Arafat and Rabin in 1993 and 1995 have been controversial for many Israelis and Palestinians. Right-wing Israelis opposed signing a deal with the PLO, a group it considered a terrorist organization — even though Arafat had renounced violence. Israeli settlers feared that Rabin`s so-called „land for peace“ formula would lead to their expulsion from lands they consider their own by biblical rights, despite the United Nations position that Israeli settlements were built in violation of international law. .

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Responses are currently closed, but you can trackback from your own site.

Comments are closed.