Free «The Success and Shortcomings of the Oslo Process» Essay Sample
Table of Contents
It is crucial to understand the nature of the agreements in the Oslo accord. The Oslo accord was signed at the White House on September 13, 1993. This agreement was signed by the Prime Minister of Israel Yitzhak Rabin and Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) Negotiator Mahmoud Abbas (Behrendt, 2007). These agreements were the principles on interim self-government arrangements. The PLO at that time renounced any acts of terrorism and confirmed that Israelites had the right to live in peace, Israelites, on the other hand, acknowledged the PLO as the overall representatives of Palestinians (Rynhold, 2008). They also agreed that permanent negotiations over the borders, Jerusalem, and the refugees would be held to put this conflict to an end. On the other hand, the American government was to spend time and resources to ensure that both sides implemented the agreements (Cordell, & Wolff, 2016). By the time Clinton left office, this agreement was already revoked, and there was a fresh wave of conflict between Israel and Palestine.
The Success and Shortcomings of the Oslo Process from the Israeli Point of View
From the views of Israelis, the Oslo Accord had its shortcomings and success. The success of this agreement from the part of Israelites is that they were still going to remain as an independent nation for a longer time. The Oslo accord recognized the validity of Israel as a nation and that it deserved to be in peace (Cordell, & Wolff, 2016). Another success of the Oslo accord on the side of Israeli was that the accord dictated the obligation for Arabs to stop attacking. The PLO voiced their renouncing of any terrorist activities; this would mean that Israel was going to stay peaceful for a while without receiving attacks from Arabs. Israelites also saw the success of these agreements as it meant that there would be no encroachment to Zion, their ancient land. They rejoiced at the fact that Jerusalem still would be in their territory (Rynhold, 2008). This would mean that their religious activities would continue without distraction. Israel would continue to enjoy the status of being an independent nation. They would be staying in Palestine and continue to operate as a government (Coskun, 2012). I agree with the aspect of these agreements causing the stop of terrorism activities because this protects the sanctity of life. At least, with the stop of terrorism, negotiations could continue with individuals having a sense of security.
Israel, however, saw the shortcomings of this set of agreements that caused it to fail. From their point of view, this treaty championed for the overall rule of Palestine, which Israel would not allow (Coskun, 2012). Israel insisted on its rights to remain in charge of its security with its military, rather than surrendering everything entirely to Palestine. Political compromise was not the way Israel wanted to go. The treaty was compelling them to release their sovereignty over a piece of land in the historic land of Israel in Palestine. This aspect for them was a shortcoming of the Oslo accord. They would live like refugees in the land that they considered their own. Another government was going to take charge over their lives and operations. This aspect of losing sovereignty on the part of Israelites was the major shortcoming of the Oslo agreement to them. It was challenging to trust their stay in Palestine under the rule and dominion of Arabs; this was truly unacceptable to them. It is reasonable that one would not trust the control over their lives and actions into the hands of someone else. As a result, Israel refused to withdraw its security personnel and remain in the hands of the Palestine security (Kurtzer, 2012).
The Success and Shortcomings of the Oslo Process from the Palestinian Point of View
There have been several attempts to control or stop the ongoing conflict between the Palestine and Israel. These attempts have been from outside these two nations and from within them. The first attempt to reach an agreement was under the British rule of the Middle East as dictated by the Palestine mandate. When pressure of the two warring groups exceeded, the British government decided to leave Palestine in 1947. The United Nations then attempted to bring peace by brining the United Nations partition plan which did not succeed in calming the conflict. Several more initiatives to bring peace have been implemented since then. A significant process of peace-seeking has been the Oslo process which was completed with the Oslo accords.
Palestine also had a unique view on the success and failure of the Oslo agreement. These success and shortcomings were quite the opposite of those of Israelites. Palestine saw the Oslo accord as an opportunity for them to reclaim their land that Israel had refused to surrender. The Palestine rejoiced at the acknowledgement of the Oslo treaty that made them the only representatives of Palestine and, therefore, the only overall government. For them, this was a major success of this agreement (Reese, 2013). They were willing to let Israelis occupy their land only if Israel would lose its sovereignty of being a nation in their land. With the loss of Israel’s independence, it was easier to reclaim the land Israelites occupied. For them, conquering a nation that had already lost its military and defensive aspects would be much easier. They were ready to restrain terrorist attacks against Israel, so that they would gain an opportunity to rule the historic land of Palestine and have the Jerusalem capital (Reese, 2013). This achievement is the major success of the Oslo agreement according to Palestine.
On the sides of the shortcomings, the Oslo accords did not contain the logistics of how Palestine would finally take over the entire land of historical Palestine. The gradual aspect of gaining control over Palestine was a big shortcoming (Rynhold, 2008). They expected Israelites to release their sovereignty easily as they had agreed. However, at the first sitting Israel was not ready to exempt the control over their state. They refused to lose their military control which is the main definition of a sovereign state. The gradual release of sovereignty by Israel looked like a way of Palestine surrender to the Israel nation (Behrendt, 2007). The agreement according to the Palestine also ignores the international legality and defied the fundamental national rights of the Palestinian people. The agreement did not quite state what would happen further as Israelites still occupied the historical Palestinian land. This agreement according to Palestinians was making them submit to the fact that Israelites were in their land to stay. It therefore, meant that Palestine indeed considered the Oslo accord to favor Israel. On the contrary, they viewed it to draw detrimental impact to the nation of Palestine.
In conclusion both of these groups looked at the Oslo accord to their advantage. Each one of them focused on how this agreement will further their plans and initial stands. Nobody wanted to compromise to the satisfaction of the other. Both of the parties lay in expectation of the other one to adjust. The success according to this agreement for each one was to their advantage. These view of success and shortcomings still prove that none of these nations is ready to lower their guard for the others sake. Both of them want peace only under the condition that their end of the bargain is satisfied.