- Assess the success and shortcomings of the Oslo process from the Israeli point of view?
According to the accord, Israel recognized PLO as the only legitimate representative of the people of Palestine. Israel did not, however. commit to the principle that Palestinians had right to statehood. For most Israelis, they supported and ensured the peace process succeeded, not because they were motivated by Palestinian rights but because they wanted to protect their identity as a democratic Jewish state. Israel also started recognizing the PLO legitimacy and started actualizing the steps of withdrawing from the Gaza region. The peace process among the Israelis was spearheaded by liberal politicians like Shimon Peres and Yossi Beilin. According to them, the peace process succeeded because there was mutual recognition between the two parties: Israel and PLO that made the conflict ripe for resolution. They also argued that there was mutual prospect for material gain by economic integration that was enough to produce sufficient support and trust to enable the two parties reach a permanent solution (Rynhold 113).
The failure of the Oslo accord can be seen from the lens of realists. They argue that the process failed because of the inherent constraints that characterized the process from the beginning. They argue that the process was not ripe for resolution because the parties defined recognition based on their interests. Furthermore, realists argue that economic integration could not support the peace process due to the depth of antagonism between Palestinians and Israel. Furthermore, mistakes by Palestinian leadership were linked to the failure to garner strong public support. Yasser Arafat, for example, was accused of allowing incitement to continue and also for not working against Palestinian terrorists. This undermined the confidence of Israelis in the willingness of Palestinians to live in peace. This weakened the support for the concession (Wittes 148).
Palestinians considered Zionism as a colonial movement which should not be associated with justice. This created the impression that Jews should depart, or they will lose their right to self-determination. This hence demonstrated lack of ripeness in the negotiations because Palestinians harbored negative feelings towards Israelis. Palestinians subordinated the right of Israel to exist as a Jewish state to the status of Palestinian refugees. This served to indicate that the removal of Israel was the primary motivation of the Palestinians. This resulted in the failure of the peace process. The cavalier treatment of Jewish history in the holy land by Yasser Arafat shocked the Israelis. This raised doubts on his ability to accept a compromise and implement the terms of the negotiations (Rynhold 114).
- Assess the success and shortcomings of the Oslo process from the Palestinian point of view?
Palestinians formally recognized the existence of the state of Israel. Palestinians failed to recognize Zionism as the legitimate national government of Israel. Palestinians on the other hand,, agreed to end their terrorism activities on innocent Israel civilians. The shortcoming of the peace process lay in the wordings. The wordings of the accord were out of balance and emphasized much on the wishes of the Israel as opposed to the demands of the Palestinians. The agreement was wholly Israel, and this frustrated the Palestinians because the fundamental flows caused lack of balance between the concessions of the two sites. The mutual recognition between the two parties made a negotiation of peace settlement real. Israel demonstrated willingness to look for peace solution. In many ways, the peace process in Oslo was driven by liberal strategies and ideas. The peace process was also promoted and facilitated by Israel politicians Yossi Beilin and Shimon Peres. This demonstrated their commitment towards the peace process particular when the two succeeded in reversing the law that hindered Israeli from engaging members of PLO. The success of the Oslo peace process was the creation of the Palestinian National Authority in West Bank and in the Gaza strip and the commitment by Israel to solve the conflict peacefully (Rynhold 111).
The peace process was hampered by the leadership behavior of the Israel negotiators. The Israel leadership negotiated from the position of strength. Netanyahu, in particular, undermined the peace process by deliberately undermining the mutual trust through expanding settlements and postponing Israeli commitments. Failure to implement liberal model of economic integration was considered as the main cause as to why the process lacked Palestinian support for reaching the agreement of permanent status. In the Palestinian perspective, the failure of the peace process was the hostility by United States that failed to be an impartial arbiter. Also, the rejection of the attempts by Palestinian authorities to discuss on history resulted to the conclusion that Israel has not come into terms with its role in the conflict and the plight of Palestinians.
There was also concern on the extreme perception among the Israelis. This concerned the fact that the Palestinians wished to use the problem of refugees return to impugn the moral legitimacy of the creation of Israel state. This made compromises on this issue difficult (Wittes 143).
Works Cited
Rynhold, Jonathan. Realism, Liberalism and the collapse of the Oslo peace process: Inherently flawed or flawed implementation?n.d. Web. 5th April, 2014. <file:///C:/Users/New%20user/Downloads/Realism%20Liberalism%20and%20the%20Collapse%20of%20the%20Oslo%20Process%20(2).pdf>
Wittes, Tamara C. How Israelis and Palestinians Negotiate. Washington, D.C: United States Institute of Peace Press, 2005. Print.
